Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

[Lowlight]

Okay, as many have seen, Desert Tactical took their 375 HTi rifle out to Sniper Country and shot it out to 3000+ yards.

We are looking at the data used and compared it with some of the ballistic programs there. Now I was not there, and I am basing this off the information provided including the real world results of the shots on target. Here is what we have found using that data.

Understand up front FFS <span style="font-style: italic">(the program used)</span> and Coldbore 1.0 are the two programs I recommend for LR Shooters. Neither one of these programs uses Point Mass a ballistic engine, so they means they are not drag function dependent. Field Firing Solutions does not even use G7 and while ColdBore 1.0 can use G7 it is not necessary.

<span style="font-weight: bold">Sight-In Conditions</span>

Baro Pressure = 24.76
Temp = 23ºF
Humidity = 53%
Alt = 4639 Feet

Field Conditions

Baro Pressure = 30.30
Temp = 15ºF
Humidity = 46%
Alt = 4639 Feet

<span style="font-weight: bold">Ballistics Parameters</span>

MV = 3118 fps
BC – G1 = 0.890 (DTM data)
BC – G7 = 0.433 (calculated, not published data)
DC = 0.500 (ColdBore 1.0)
Click Setting = 0.102 MRAD (ColdBore 1.0)
BW = 352 gr
ZR = 100 yards
SH = 2.0 Inches
WD = 150º
WV= 6.0 Mph
Lat = 40ºN (aprox)
Az = 001º

Litz’s program does not use BARO, so the STAT pressure was set at 25.55, yielding an Air Density of 0.07133 lb/ft³ which is the exactly the same as for using a BARO pressure.

<span style="text-decoration: underline">Ballistics Predictions as yielded by 4 different programs</span>

CB1 = 40.7 MRAD
Litz – G1 = 37.3 MRAD
Litz – G7 = 39.7 MRAD
JBM – G1 = 37.1 MRAD
JBM – G7 = 39.5 MRAD
FFS = 39.6 MRAD

All predictions took into account the scope tracking error of 2% as indicated by Ross.

From the DTA HTI test the following value is considered the TRUE adjustment to hit the target.
E<span style="color: #FF0000">levation Adjustment Required at 3080 yards (2816 meters): 40.8 MILS</span>

So at that range 1.0 MRAD =>> 3.08 yards = 2.816 meters = 110.88 inches = 9.23 feet

Now, the <span style="font-weight: bold">LINEAR ERROR</span> for the different predictions are as follows :

CB1 = 40.8 - 40.7 = 0.1 MRAD =>> 0.28 meters = 11.08 inches

Litz - G1 = 40.8 - 37.3 = 3.5 MRAD =>> 9.86 meters = 388.03 inches
Litz - G7 = 40.8 - 39.7 = 1.1 MRAD =>> 3.10 meters = 121.95 inches

JBM - G1 = 40.8 - 37.1 = 3.7 MRAD =>> 10.42 meters = 410.24 inches
JBM - G7 = 40.8 - 39.5 = 1.3 MRAD =>> 3.66 meters = 144.1inches

FFS = 40.8 - 39.6 = 1.2 MRAD =>> 3.38 meters = 133.08 inches

As can be fully appreciated, <span style="font-weight: bold">NO TWEAKING</span> at all was used in neither program, moreover, in ColdBore 1.0 there is a feature (not a tweak) to account for the tracking error. It’s called the TRT units, and it takes into play the “Click Setting” value to compute the required compensation.

This is simply an exercise using the data, but it highlights going to that extreme region of ELR shooting and should be a good representation of what you can expect from your ballistic program.

Understand garbage in yields garbage out and we do our best to provide the details of the data used.

Links to DTA Thread
DTA Thread Link 1

 

[Abq-Defense]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

Lowlight,

Thanks for the terrific analysis of the shoot and the various programs.

I see you used Click Setting = 0.102 MRAD in (ColdBore 1.0). Did you make the same adjustment in FFS? It also allows for Click Adjustments.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

They did, it was done by DTA, they calibrated FFS and it was based off their numbers on site with the Kestrel feeding it.

As I noted I was not present, so a lot of the numbers are from what they recorded.

 

[RussW1911]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

Looks great Frank! Thank you for the comparison.

 

[Bigwheels]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

So there was no attempt to adjust the DK in FFS at the 2K+/- steel? If so. In your experience, would that have allowed a result as close as the CB 1.0? Also, would that adjustment to DK induce an error @ shorter ranges?

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

I have personally used both FFS and CB1 side by side as they are both loaded on to my personal Nomad and I have found with calibration, and a bit of Adjustment they are both equally good at predicting the flight.

I have also ran both of these alongside a Point Mass calculator out to 2000+ meters and in my experience they are no where near as accurate as either one of these programs.

If its your rifle you should be able to tweak anything to be 100% solid, that is the point of calibrating.

 

[ney1]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

Lowlight,
Appreciate the computer analysis and comparison. We run CB1 and FFS and are happy to see they are the ones to be using.

 

[Bigwheels]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

Thanks. I have been using FFS for many years, & have had it within 1.5-2 clicks @ 1800yd with my 300wm, & 225 hpbt. Of course I haven't tried anything close to 3k yd with that. 2100yd is as far as I've gone.

 

[wadcutter]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

Interesting comparison Lowlight,
I have found the the JBM, Litz type programs are fine for high speed solutions but tend to give less elevation than what is actually required from transonic.
This seems to fit in with your observations in this comparison.
I think that single BC solutions are just too simplistic for such long range shooting and that multi BC solutions are the answer. For me anyway.

 

[The Mechanic]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

Is there any discount for CB1 if you have LB3?

 

[Eaglet]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Now, the <span style="font-weight: bold">LINEAR ERROR</span> for the different predictions are as follows :

CB1 = 40.8 - 40.7 = 0.1 MRAD =>> 0.28 meters = 11.08 inches

Litz - G1 = 40.8 - 37.3 = 3.5 MRAD =>> 9.86 meters = 388.03 inches
Litz - G7 = 40.8 - 39.7 = 1.1 MRAD =>> 3.10 meters = 121.95 inches

JBM - G1 = 40.8 - 37.1 = 3.7 MRAD =>> 10.42 meters = 410.24 inches
JBM - G7 = 40.8 - 39.5 = 1.3 MRAD =>> 3.66 meters = 144.1inches

FFS = 40.8 - 39.6 = 1.2 MRAD =>> 3.38 meters = 133.08 inches
</div></div>

Great post LowLight! Thanks for posting. I think this truly proves CB1's ability to produce great solutions at supersonic and subsonic velocities. Thanks!

 

[one shot ST]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

from the middle of January I'll have ready my .375, I'll do some ELR test, what I've seen till today is FFS works great if you use correct inputs, BC, muzzle velocity, scope clics.. I calculate the BC using the option in tools section of FFS, with 2 PVM 08 one at the muzzle the other one at 350/400 meters, with this first BC I shoot long distance using this system http://www.delconit.com/?lang=en and I catch actual speed at 1000/1500 meters, to tune better the actual BC of the bullet, now with the .375 I'll do the same test but with this system at longer distance, where the bullet is still supersonic.

How Frank wrote " As I noted I was not present, so a lot of the numbers are from what they recorded."

I've seen that the BC of cutting edge bullets it was calculated using muzzle velocity and drops at 1000, 1500 ( cutting edge webstore )

using this method introduce some more variables, at that distance, 3080 y there are a lot of factors to take in account.

may be the initial BC of .890 was not correct, anf FFS give a solution with a wrong BC.

to verify the BC in one test with a .408 I've shooted from 300 meters till 1900, with several steps.

<span style="font-weight: bold">to review the number</span> of the DTA test in my FFS I've create a profile for bullets cutting edge and turret in MIL with .102 and I've also put the same meteo data..

the actual turret solution is 41.3 MIL... looking the orange spot on the target are all a little bit in the bottom, so 41.3 MIL in not so far from the center mass, but shooting in hold off ( read what Nicolas wrote ) is also a difficult way to give a real and correct TRUE elevation...

turret profile

meteo data

primary page, where you can see the turret solution of 41.3 instead of 42.1, this due every click is .102

for example a little variation in the BC .895 instead of .890

give us a solution very close to 40.8, but for me 40.8 give a low POI...... <span style="font-weight: bold">better actual FFS solution 41.3, .5 MIL at that distance is 1,4 meters, so all the shoots from actual POI move up..</span>

so numbers are numbers, and we have to check that initial inputs are corrects..

<span style="font-weight: bold">using the same data I got .5 MIL, but I'm looking the target and it seem that a FFS solution of 41.3 is a better prediction, better than 40.8 ( impact low )</span>
but we have also to take in account the following from Nicolas

" Shooting this great distance it requires a scope with lots of elevation travel and a reticle with precise holdover points. With this setup we maxed the turrets elevation adjustment out at 30.6 MILS and had to hold an additional 10.25 MILS of holdover with the EBR-2B reticle. Unfortunately their reticle really ends at 9MILS, which made it less convenient, and necessary to use the thick stadia line as a elevation reference. With the necessary wind holds then I was on the side of the thick stadia line so it did not obstruct my vision of the target. I would have elected to get rid of the thick stadia line at the bottom and continued the hold markings all the way to the edge of the field of view. It is important to note that we had to dial down to 12x magnification in order to view the bottom portion of the reticle that we had to aim with. "



making all the considerations was a great shooting !!!

 

[Timo Turl]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Mechanic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is there any discount for CB1 if you have LB3? </div></div>

That's a good question...anyone ?

Using the above data i got to 40.0 mils at 3,000 yards using LB3

 

[one shot ST]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

try with 3080 y

 

[Timo Turl]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

couldn't figure out how to get it out to 3080...went to 3k by itself and i guess that i need to change it somewhere to longer range but couldn't figure it out, does it go out longer range ? never shot that far myself.

Edit: checked LB3 manual and it only goes out to 3,000 yards

 

[Bigwheels]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: davide</div><div class="ubbcode-body">from the middle of January I'll have ready my .375, I'll do some ELR test, what I've seen till today is FFS works great if you use correct inputs, BC.... I calculate the BC using the option in tools section of FFS, with 2 PVM 08 one at the muzzle the other one at 350/400 meters, with this first BC I shoot long distance using this system http://www.delconit.com/?lang=en and I'll catch actual speed at 1000/1500 meters, to tune better the actual BC of the bullet, now with the .375 I'll do the same test but with this system at longer distance, where the bullet is still supersonic.

How Frank wrote " As I noted I was not present, so a lot of the numbers are from what they recorded."

I've seen that the BC of cutting edge bullets is was calculated using muzzle velocity and drops at 1000, 1500 ( cutting edge webstore )

using this method introduce some more variables, at that distance, 3080 y there are a lot of factors to take in account.

may be the initial BC of .890 was not correct, anf FFS give a solution with a wrong BC.

to verify the BC in one test with a .408 I've shooted from 300 meters till 1900, with several steep.

<span style="font-weight: bold">to review the number</span> of the DTA test in my FFS I've create a profile for bullets cutting edge and turret in MIL with .102 and I've also put the same meteo data..

the actual turret solution is 41.3 MIL... looking the orange spot on the target are all a little bit in the bottom, so 41.3 MIL in not so far from the center mass, but shooting in hold off ( read what Nicolas wrote ) is also a difficult way to give a real and correct TRUE elevation...

turret profile

meteo data

primary page, where you can see the turret solution of 41.3 instead of 42.1, this due every click is .102

for example a little variation in the BC .895 instead of .890

give us a solution very close to 40.8, but for me 40.8 give a low POI...... <span style="font-weight: bold">better actual FFS solution 41.3, .5 MIL at that distance is 1,4 meters, so all the shoots from actual POI move up..</span>

so numbers are numbers, and we have to check which initial input are corrects..

<span style="font-weight: bold">using the same data I got .5 MIL, but I'm looking the target and it seem that a FFS solution of 41.3 is a better prediction, better than 40.8 ( impact low )</span>
but we have also to take in account the following from Nicolas

" Shooting this great distance it requires a scope with lots of elevation travel and a reticle with precise holdover points. With this setup we maxed the turrets elevation adjustment out at 30.6 MILS and had to hold an additional 10.25 MILS of holdover with the EBR-2B reticle. Unfortunately their reticle really ends at 9MILS, which made it less convenient, and necessary to use the thick stadia line as a elevation reference. With the necessary wind holds then I was on the side of the thick stadia line so it did not obstruct my vision of the target. I would have elected to get rid of the thick stadia line at the bottom and continued the hold markings all the way to the edge of the field of view. It is important to note that we had to dial down to 12x magnification in order to view the bottom portion of the reticle that we had to aim with. "



making all the considerations was a great shooting !!!

</div></div>
I noticed that the "Fixed Zero" box wasn't checked. If you set the Atmos profile to the provided baseline, & check the fixed zero box the computer won't think the solution was based off a zero obtained on the day of the test, which was different than when it was actually zeroed.
I agree with you that the impacts looked to average low.

 

[one shot ST]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

the fixed zero was not checked because the zero was at 100 y, reading the data posted by Frank..

you have to check the fixed zero if your rifle zero is set for example at 600 y...

if I check this box, nothing change, always 41.3 MIL

 

[Bigwheels]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

Good to know. I have always set mine up with the zero conditions first, & fixed zero, even tho I'm only using a 100yd zero. I figured it would make a small difference @ extreme ranges. Especially since I sometimes go from 500'asl one day to 5600'asl the next when I can get up there.

 

[mouse07410]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Understand up front FFS (the program used) and Coldbore 1.0 are the two programs I recommend for LR Shooters....

CB1........= 40.8 - 40.7 = 0.1 MRAD =>> 0.28 meters = 11.08 inches
Litz - G7..= 40.8 - 39.7 = 1.1 MRAD =>> 3.10 meters = 121.95 inches
JBM - G7..= 40.8 - 39.5 = 1.3 MRAD =>> 3.66 meters = 144.1inches
FFS........= 40.8 - 39.6 = 1.2 MRAD =>> 3.38 meters = 133.08 inches

As can be fully appreciated, NO TWEAKING at all was used in neither program, moreover, in ColdBore 1.0 there is a feature (not a tweak) to account for the tracking error.
</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have personally used both FFS and CB1 side by side as they are both loaded on to my personal Nomad and I have found with calibration, and a bit of Adjustment they are both equally good at predicting the flight.</div></div>
Frank,

Could you clarify please? I feel that I'm missing something. The above numbers show that FFS gave accuracy in the ballpark of the PM solvers (worse than Litz but better than JBM, difference about 0.1 MRAD each way), and only ColdBore brought you within 11 inches of the POA? Why is it that the recommended FFS appears to perform poorly in the above test? Is it that ColdBore doesn't need any tweaking at all, and FFS requires tweaking to compute accurately???

Tnx!

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

Understand I was not present when FFS was used, I did not input or calibrate it, so I cannot say why they have gotten the number they did with FFS.

However I have shot beyond 2000m with Both CB1 and FFS and they are both really close and really accurate, especially when compared to PM.

This is a non-practical exercise using practical data... anything could change one over the other however in this case, CB was right on.

Davide, posted his numbers and they appear to be every bit as accurate.

 

[one shot ST]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

Hello...initially Merry Christmas to all !!

what I did is, taken the number published for the test.

created the turret profile with nominal clicks of .102 MIL insted of .1 MIL, zero 100 y, SH 2 inches

created a bullet profile with the Cutting Edge MTH L10 datas, BC .890 ( BC confirmed at 1500 as published on the website )
used a MV of 3118 fp/s

taken all the enviroment datas written by Nicolas, put all in my Nomad.. hit CALCULATE and got 41.3 MIL.

FFS give me a turret solution of 41.3 MIL, looking the orange spots ot the paper obtained with 40.8 MIL, most of them are in the bottom of the target, is very easy to say that 41.3 MIL of FFS was the best solution.

I don't know how the guys during the test put the numbers in their FFS, but with these numbers FFS is rock on, better than other solutions.

responding to Mouse for " FFS requires tweaking to compute accurately ?? "

I say.. NO, FFS needs only correct inputs, no tweaking at all..

 

[ney1]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

Merry Christmas guys!

I want to go back out and shoot at 500, 1000, 1500, 2000, 2500, and 3000 and compare Ballistic Computer accuracy. This would be really great info for everyone.

 

[Kilmore]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

Our dope for a .338 Lapua using a 300 gr SMK suppressed at 3000 yards is 51.65 mils. The elevation for a .408 using a 420 gr RMB bullet unsuppressed at 3000 yards is 35.45 mils. Bullet mass at subsonic velocities is an asset in ELR applications. We would like to get ahold of some Doppler data for the .375 and plug it in to the system to see what we can learn. Anybody have access to radar studies with the .375? Thanks in advance.

 

[mouse07410]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

Nick, a great idea!

Kilmore, could you tell what MV for 300gr SMK and what weather/location conditions you plugged in? Also, how much does suppressor affect the dope?

Tnx!

 

[Kilmore]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

Data for .338: 4270, 72 F, 29.95, 20%, 354 az, -6 dec, wind 5 mph, plus scope settings, gun data, BC, lat long, angle, etc. The variation from suppressed to unsuppressed velocity: 2710 u/sup, 2750 sup. Data for .408: 4270, 50 F, 25.56, 35%, 354 az, -6 dec, wind 3 mph, velocity un/sup 2900.

 

[mouse07410]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

Thank you!

Trying your 338LM data with PM solvers (that I have access to) gave me 53.8mil from Shooter (using stepped G7 BC), and 51.3mil (or 51.6mil if wind is from 3 o'clock) from Bullet Flight (using single G1 BC 0.768, will try G7 some time later). I was shocked to find that Ballistic FTE refused to compute for this distance (and so did Lapua Ballistic - which refuses to go beyond supersonic distance, and then only for Laspua bullets).

FFS would be nice to try, but I don't have a PDA it could run on, nor money for it (not that I expect to use such distances in foreseeable future anyway

).

 

[Bigwheels]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

If you want one, just get a used one from e bay. I got an old dell for about $40.00. It has a couple glitches but runs ffs & for the price I won't cry if it gets broken again.

 

[Kilmore]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

I feel your pain man. The Trimble T-41 with BlueTooth I am using was over $2000 and the ballistic program is valued at $1500 per Micro SD. The V.T. Miltope System is over $5000. This stuff can get spendy real fast.

 

[mouse07410]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

Bigwheels, what exactly would I look for on eBay? A used Trimble? What would be a minimal <span style="font-weight: bold">usable</span> device? You said "Dell", but I didn't understand what kind/model you meant.

Kilmore, yeah...

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

If you get an iPaq from HP that works, you just need an SD Card Slot in order to FFS on a Windows PDA ...

Like the iPAQ 211 or something similar.

The Trimbles don't lose their value much so expect to pay over $1000 depending and you have to use a NOMAD as the RECON will not accept the FFS Chip.

 

[Abq-Defense]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

The hardware to run FFS doesn't have to be expensive. I got the Pharos 565 locally for $80, and picked up a 2nd (backup) unit on ebay for $60. The Pharos 565 has the built in GPS, Bluetooth, and Wifi.

It runs FFS just fine. The Pharos GPS is fast and accurate, and the Bluetooth talks with a Kestrel device.

I don't know if you could use the Pharos with a Serial rangefinder (maybe you could via a usb/serial cable). I would think this is a non-issue though. If you find the $$$ for one of those rangefinders you may find the $$$ for a PDA to work with it.

 

[Bigwheels]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

I got a Dell ipaq don't remember the number right now. Basically any pda that uses windows mobile with a sd card will work. You don't need all the blue tooth, etc either. Is it convenient, yes, but I'm not too lazy to input the atmosphere by hand.

 

[Abq-Defense]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

Typing in the Kestrel info isnt a big deal, but many will find the GPS functionality very handy.

If you have a Win Mobile PDA already, then of course, use it to get started. Most of us don't.

If you can find PDAs in the $60-$80 range that have GPS, Bluetooth, Wifi, and USB, why give up the GPS advantages?

Ranging and Targeting with GPS is convenient feature, when you can use it.

Thanks to those that posed the DTA info and analysis. Its a great learning exercise, seeing how the various programs do at longer ranges.

 

[RussW1911]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you get an iPaq from HP that works, you just need an SD Card Slot in order to FFS on a Windows PDA ...

Like the iPAQ 211 or something similar.

The Trimbles don't lose their value much so expect to pay over $1000 depending and you have to use a NOMAD as the RECON will not accept the FFS Chip. </div></div>

Frank, the T41 Juno by Trimble is also a good one. It's completely touch screen as well. Some like that better than others. It works great for me. I echo your pricing..... spendy.

 

[Timo Turl]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

Click Setting = 0.102 MRAD

Can you plse outline the process used to determine the tracking error ?

 

[ney1]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

We hung a weighted measuring stick at 50meters and mounted our scope in a vice and turned the elevation knob from one extreme end to the other and marked on the measuring stick where we started and stopped. We made sure that all clicks on the extreme ends moved the crosshair then we converted it to cm at 100meters to determine actual click value, formula total travel in CM at 100m divided by total number of clicks.

 

[Timo Turl]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

Thanks. That's very interesting.

 

[jerry1]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

I am not familiar with the coldbore software. Who carries it and what is its approximate price?
Thanks,

 

[one shot ST]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

I've checked also with CB1 all the parameters of the DTA test.....

but I can write distance only to 3000 y....... how did they get a solution for 3080 ?

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

Davide see the red section on my post above, it was done in meters.

 

[one shot ST]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

ok, understood...... 1 more point for CB1, one more occasion to use the converter..

 

[Timo Turl]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

LB3 only goes up to 2,750m. Guess CB1 goes further in meters ?

 

[mouse07410]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

I personally didn't have good luck communicating with Patagonia. Since support is important to me, I chose not to deal with them despite the accuracy of their software. For those in need of accuracy greater than what JBM and such provide, there is FFS. For the rest of us who still hope to make reliable 1 mile hits some day (and don't have a field to try it, let alone the skills), it would probably be better to spend money on training, ammo, and good glass rather than on the contorted CB1 license (One device only! Can't move to another device after 3 months! Anything else I forgot?). And perhaps after the appropriate trueing, apps like Shooter and Ballistic AE can bring you close enough even on 2K+m distances (on 1Km and less they didn't need any trueing in my limited experience - inputting the correct published stepped BC was sufficient).

Again, yes it is personal.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TJ.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LB3 only goes up to 2,750m. Guess CB1 goes further in meters ?</div></div>

TJ,

Change the Zero Range from yards to meters, so you are zeroed at 90 meters, then the program will allow you to go to 3000 meters.

If you are set to a 100 yard zero, it will stop at 2750m, (3000 yards) if you change over to meters it will stop at 3000m.

 

[Timo Turl]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

Thanks Frank...cunning !

 

[jerry1]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

I am confused about ELR shooters having problems getting solid projectiles. I made rifle barrels for a large part of my adult life. We made a lot of 50's and I played with them a lot. We simply turned the projectile on a modern CNC and we were off to the races. We also shot projectiles made on a screw machine. Typically we used some type of naval bronze. They were not hard to make at all. Yet from reading this forum one would think only God could make them. I have also read that only certain type of barrels can shoot a given bullet. I am extremely doubtful of this claim. The rifle barrels job is to simply stabilize the projectile. It is not voodoo. I don't want to offend anyone's efforts in this field. However, there is a lot of sand being thrown in shooters eyes. There is very real problems with solid projectiles. They foul very badly,they are hard on barrels, and the cost is clearly too high. When all the smoke clears most shooters will be very happy with standard jacketed bullets.

 

[steve123]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

Getting solids is not a problem.

Getting a solid that works can be a problem. The problem usually stems from pushing the extreme boundaries of bullet design to get the highest BC possible and still work. This is obvious to me after reading all the "smart bullet makers dudes" argue back and forth for years.

It's been my opinion for the last 4 years that if someone wants a "super high BC, say above 1.2" then a very large cartridge with a very heavy projectile of "moderate" design is the answer.

When Berger comes out with a conventional bullet in .375 I might revisit ownership of the 375CT again. Solids have been a hassle to me for the reasons you stated.

 

[Eaglet]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TJ.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LB3 only goes up to 2,750m. Guess CB1 goes further in meters ? </div></div>

Just installed update 1.0.0.4 for ColdBore

Here is a copy/paste of part of the email I received:

<span style="font-weight: bold">This update incorporates the following additions:</span>

<span style="color: #CC0000">BALLISTICS Module</span>

The maximum range has been extended to 3500 yards/meters

<span style="color: #FF0000">GPS/TARGTES Module</span>

A new feature has been introduced that allows to transfer a TARGET position as obtained in the MAPPING/COORDS sub tab to MAPPING/RANGING and TARGETS/STORE-EDIT sub tabs.

 

[ney1]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

Got an email from Patagonia yesterday they just increased their max distance on their program to 3500 yards. Wonder why they did that?

Looks like we can push it even farther now.

 

[dynamic research]

Re: Ballistic Prediction Comparison DTA 3000yd Shots

Jerry1, There are several things to consider when making a lathe turned projectile. First is the material. How does the material act under pressure, extreme heat and friction. Second, what is the internal ballistics, does the bullet swage to the shape of the barrel or do the riflings cut the material. Next, when the bullet exits the muzzle, is it stable? Is the twist rate right for the projectile design. Is it stable throughout the flight path. If not, back to the drawing board.
They comes the machinery. If you worked making barrels, you most likely used someone elses machine and tooling. This adds alot to the cost when you look at machine payments, shop costs, material cost, labor cost, repair costs. It never ends.
To make the projectiles right, every part must be checked for tolerance, not all make the grade so this is a loss. The continual testing of the projectiles and making changes to improve on what you have.
If you want to take them to a machine shop they will run them as "parts" not projectiles. Then you get to measure them, sort them and sellable and non sellable, and figure the real cost.
In the end you need to add this all together and come up with a price that you can sell them at, pay for everything and still eat. You will never be able to make them as cheap as lead core bullets. In the end, you are not looking for cheap, you are looking for precision at long range. And thats what you pay for.
Also, with the right material, the fouling is minimal. I have pictures on this site of a barrel that has fired 130 rounds of 375 CT using lathe turned Predators. I am hoping this will clear up some of the myths that are being spread about some of the monolithic solids.