When shooting past 1000 to a mile what do you guys think is the most accurate Ballistics program?
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Ballistic Program
- Thread starter muleman
- Start date
Re: Ballistic Program
I have bought the Knight's BulletFlight, Shooter and "Ballistic" for my Ipod, using the same data, both are with in 1/2 MOA or less out past 1000y when the data is matched to my spread sheet.
But, if i was going to buy another for the Ipod / IPhone, it would be "shooter" and FTE 2nd
for 9.99 it will be the new king, it has most of what FTE and KAC has, and more.. the "more" is realy geared for LONG range shooting... if all you shoot is less then 500, any of these apps will work, but if you shoot 1000y to 2000y go with shooter..
I have bought the Knight's BulletFlight, Shooter and "Ballistic" for my Ipod, using the same data, both are with in 1/2 MOA or less out past 1000y when the data is matched to my spread sheet.
But, if i was going to buy another for the Ipod / IPhone, it would be "shooter" and FTE 2nd
for 9.99 it will be the new king, it has most of what FTE and KAC has, and more.. the "more" is realy geared for LONG range shooting... if all you shoot is less then 500, any of these apps will work, but if you shoot 1000y to 2000y go with shooter..
Re: Ballistic Program
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: turbo54</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Strelok is free, and has worked admirably. </div></div>
Strelok is no longer free it starts at 5$ i think...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: turbo54</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Strelok is free, and has worked admirably. </div></div>
Strelok is no longer free it starts at 5$ i think...
Re: Ballistic Program
Shooter does look good, I want FIRST round hits past 1000, I guess that's what we all want!!
Shooter does look good, I want FIRST round hits past 1000, I guess that's what we all want!!
Re: Ballistic Program
If you search the Hide, you'll find the general consensus to be that the inexpensive programs that work on your phone (Ballistic, Bullet Flight, etc) do well inside of 1000 yards. Beyond that they start to have problems. In the 1000+ yards area, Field Firing Solutions and Patagonia Ballistics seem to be more popular.
If you search the Hide, you'll find the general consensus to be that the inexpensive programs that work on your phone (Ballistic, Bullet Flight, etc) do well inside of 1000 yards. Beyond that they start to have problems. In the 1000+ yards area, Field Firing Solutions and Patagonia Ballistics seem to be more popular.
Re: Ballistic Program
Four of us use Shooter out to 1800 yards and find it reasonably accurate, certainly enough to get to within 10 feet circle around the mile target. I ignore the Coriolis, spin effect and just focus on elevation. The models are pretty much only as accurate as the bullet ballistics that you put in.
I have not heard of either solutions that Dogtown is mentioning, but I will also look into those for my own purposes. Be interesting to see if they can be more accurate.
Four of us use Shooter out to 1800 yards and find it reasonably accurate, certainly enough to get to within 10 feet circle around the mile target. I ignore the Coriolis, spin effect and just focus on elevation. The models are pretty much only as accurate as the bullet ballistics that you put in.
I have not heard of either solutions that Dogtown is mentioning, but I will also look into those for my own purposes. Be interesting to see if they can be more accurate.
Re: Ballistic Program
Curious about just how close you all have been able to get your ballistic program to actual dope? I have Shooter, & FFS, & have been trueing them both for what seems like forever, & after all the scope calibration, etc neither is perfect. Particularly when making a big change in elevation, & temp. So how close have you been able to get?
Curious about just how close you all have been able to get your ballistic program to actual dope? I have Shooter, & FFS, & have been trueing them both for what seems like forever, & after all the scope calibration, etc neither is perfect. Particularly when making a big change in elevation, & temp. So how close have you been able to get?
Re: Ballistic Program
I'd have to go check my logbooks for a detailed response, but I recollect that a mile, Shooter is off as much as 0.5 MIL. Can't recall whether it was over or under, I think it was too high by 0.5MIL. But at say 1000 with same gun, it was right there.
That sent me looking for a ballistic data set that measured BC by speed, which I found at the Lapua website, figuring that BC changed as the bullet slowed down, per Bryan's book. Lapua have radar range data for several speed buckets. This did not appear to help alot if I recall, again I'd have to get my logbook.
I'd have to go check my logbooks for a detailed response, but I recollect that a mile, Shooter is off as much as 0.5 MIL. Can't recall whether it was over or under, I think it was too high by 0.5MIL. But at say 1000 with same gun, it was right there.
That sent me looking for a ballistic data set that measured BC by speed, which I found at the Lapua website, figuring that BC changed as the bullet slowed down, per Bryan's book. Lapua have radar range data for several speed buckets. This did not appear to help alot if I recall, again I'd have to get my logbook.
Re: Ballistic Program
I have used Shooter and Strelok both with great results, but my only use so far has been to 800 yards. I hear great things about FFS from others here on the sight and have also heard great things about the Horus Atrag software.
I saw it in use in the Magpul Precision videos and think i might give it a shot in the future.
I have used Shooter and Strelok both with great results, but my only use so far has been to 800 yards. I hear great things about FFS from others here on the sight and have also heard great things about the Horus Atrag software.
I saw it in use in the Magpul Precision videos and think i might give it a shot in the future.
Re: Ballistic Program
FFS and Coldbore, properly calibrated, have been proven good to within .1 mil at 2000m over a very wide range of conditions, rifles and ammo.
Calibration should be done within 100 rounds, if the proper procedures are followed, you have a good chronograph and are very careful with your measurements.
FFS and Coldbore, properly calibrated, have been proven good to within .1 mil at 2000m over a very wide range of conditions, rifles and ammo.
Calibration should be done within 100 rounds, if the proper procedures are followed, you have a good chronograph and are very careful with your measurements.
Re: Ballistic Program
I'm new to all this but I remember hearing Todd Hodnett saying something about after your bullet goes subsonic you have to put in the bullets new ballistic coefficient or something. Maybe someone on here knows what I'm trying to say.
I'm new to all this but I remember hearing Todd Hodnett saying something about after your bullet goes subsonic you have to put in the bullets new ballistic coefficient or something. Maybe someone on here knows what I'm trying to say.
Re: Ballistic Program
I have them all, ballistic ae, shooter, bullet flight, mil dot ballistics, and bc I use the g1 I would say ballistic fte , now ae, is my most accurate. 1st time at 1k I was dead on. It also put me on 1st shot at 1202 yards also. Like anything else... Got to pick your poison
I have them all, ballistic ae, shooter, bullet flight, mil dot ballistics, and bc I use the g1 I would say ballistic fte , now ae, is my most accurate. 1st time at 1k I was dead on. It also put me on 1st shot at 1202 yards also. Like anything else... Got to pick your poison
Re: Ballistic Program
Has anybody heard of AIM-E Ballistics program? I was told it`s not yet available to the public? I don`t think it`s based on BC but drag coefficient. We currently use Trimble Nomad and Recon, also Shooter but I was told that AIM-E is the newest and best going. We`ll see!
Has anybody heard of AIM-E Ballistics program? I was told it`s not yet available to the public? I don`t think it`s based on BC but drag coefficient. We currently use Trimble Nomad and Recon, also Shooter but I was told that AIM-E is the newest and best going. We`ll see!
Re: Ballistic Program
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Mechanic</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dbateman™</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I use THIS it takes a little more time to set up but once it's done your good to go. </div></div>
But what happens when the batteries go dead?
</div></div>
I couldn't help it I just had to say it.
I am a big fan of just using a data book.
However the ballistic programs do interest me but I haven't had anything to do with them.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Mechanic</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dbateman™</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I use THIS it takes a little more time to set up but once it's done your good to go. </div></div>
But what happens when the batteries go dead?
I couldn't help it I just had to say it.
I am a big fan of just using a data book.
However the ballistic programs do interest me but I haven't had anything to do with them.
Re: Ballistic Program
A databook works for ranges about 1200 and in, where one has enough data to deal with current conditions compared to the existing conditions. A databook is simply not enough for ELR work, very minor changes make a big difference downrange. The program also allows for the solving of many problems that a databook generally cannot handle without a lot of manual work.
A databook works for ranges about 1200 and in, where one has enough data to deal with current conditions compared to the existing conditions. A databook is simply not enough for ELR work, very minor changes make a big difference downrange. The program also allows for the solving of many problems that a databook generally cannot handle without a lot of manual work.
Re: Ballistic Program
Under 1300 -+fps closed form equations using retard coeffiecents put G1/G7/G whatever in the dirt.
In the near future there will be new ballistic programs that solve supersonic/transonic/subsonic bullet flight to the target.
DTubb
Under 1300 -+fps closed form equations using retard coeffiecents put G1/G7/G whatever in the dirt.
In the near future there will be new ballistic programs that solve supersonic/transonic/subsonic bullet flight to the target.
DTubb
Re: Ballistic Program
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DTubb</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Under 1300 -+fps closed form equations using retard coeffiecents put G1/G7/G whatever in the dirt.
In the near future there will be new ballistic programs that solve supersonic/transonic/subsonic bullet flight to the target.
DTubb
</div></div> That sounds great. I've had troubles with my handheld PDA so I guess I'm back in the market, maybe it will be out by the time I'm ready for purchase.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DTubb</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Under 1300 -+fps closed form equations using retard coeffiecents put G1/G7/G whatever in the dirt.
In the near future there will be new ballistic programs that solve supersonic/transonic/subsonic bullet flight to the target.
DTubb
</div></div> That sounds great. I've had troubles with my handheld PDA so I guess I'm back in the market, maybe it will be out by the time I'm ready for purchase.
Re: Ballistic Program
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DTubb</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Under 1300 -+fps closed form equations using retard coeffiecents put G1/G7/G whatever in the dirt.
In the near future there will be new ballistic programs that solve supersonic/transonic/subsonic bullet flight to the target.
DTubb
</div></div>
David, I have enjoyed the two books of yours "Highpower Rifle" and "The Rifle Shooter". They have helped me become a much better shooter over the years. I won't say how many years
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DTubb</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Under 1300 -+fps closed form equations using retard coeffiecents put G1/G7/G whatever in the dirt.
In the near future there will be new ballistic programs that solve supersonic/transonic/subsonic bullet flight to the target.
DTubb
</div></div>
David, I have enjoyed the two books of yours "Highpower Rifle" and "The Rifle Shooter". They have helped me become a much better shooter over the years. I won't say how many years
Re: Ballistic Program
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A databook works for ranges about 1200 and in, where one has enough data to deal with current conditions compared to the existing conditions. A databook is simply not enough for ELR work, very minor changes make a big difference downrange. The program also allows for the solving of many problems that a databook generally cannot handle without a lot of manual work. </div></div>
Cory thanks for taking time to answer.
I have no real experience with ballistic software, I did have shooter on my android but thats about it.
I have been looking at FFS and I am unsure of how these programs work.
If I were to develop a load and I go and chronograph it at set enviromentals
and input that data will the program adjust for varying enviromentals or do you have to input more data under different conditions?
I have a CED M2 is that a good enough chronograph to use to input data into one of these programs?
I have had a look at FFS and it seems it comes on a sd card are you guys running these programs on a dedicated pda or just using a smart phone?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A databook works for ranges about 1200 and in, where one has enough data to deal with current conditions compared to the existing conditions. A databook is simply not enough for ELR work, very minor changes make a big difference downrange. The program also allows for the solving of many problems that a databook generally cannot handle without a lot of manual work. </div></div>
Cory thanks for taking time to answer.
I have no real experience with ballistic software, I did have shooter on my android but thats about it.
I have been looking at FFS and I am unsure of how these programs work.
If I were to develop a load and I go and chronograph it at set enviromentals
and input that data will the program adjust for varying enviromentals or do you have to input more data under different conditions?
I have a CED M2 is that a good enough chronograph to use to input data into one of these programs?
I have had a look at FFS and it seems it comes on a sd card are you guys running these programs on a dedicated pda or just using a smart phone?
Re: Ballistic Program
Once you have done the calibration process, which means getting your scope checked for travel, getting the velocity on the load, then shooting a bit out to a range that leaves you at 1300 or so fps, you are set for any conditions. You input the current conditions and you get data more accurate that you can hold out to the limits of the cartridge.
FFS runs on Windows Mobile platforms what have a full size SD card slot. I use a dedicated rugged PDA, since I need a field system. You can use a pretty cheap basic PDA in an Otterbox as a B grade solution.
Once you have done the calibration process, which means getting your scope checked for travel, getting the velocity on the load, then shooting a bit out to a range that leaves you at 1300 or so fps, you are set for any conditions. You input the current conditions and you get data more accurate that you can hold out to the limits of the cartridge.
FFS runs on Windows Mobile platforms what have a full size SD card slot. I use a dedicated rugged PDA, since I need a field system. You can use a pretty cheap basic PDA in an Otterbox as a B grade solution.
Re: Ballistic Program
Thanks, I will have to look into getting a pda and taking the next step in long range shooting.
Thanks, I will have to look into getting a pda and taking the next step in long range shooting.
I've heard the same and am hoping to get a chance to evaluate it in the near future and make a determination for myself.
Absolutely right. As many have said many times, programs like Patagonia's CB1 are the real ticket for ELR work, provided it is properly fed.
The new Kestrels with the Applied Ballistics program use Brian Litz's ( Berger Bullets fame) bullet design information, combined with actual weather conditions at the point of firing, to calculate the specific dope required. It will be the next big step, specifically calculating density altiitude, as that greatly affects the long range shots.
There is a guy in the for sale section who has the first shipment of the kestrels for sale.
There is a guy in the for sale section who has the first shipment of the kestrels for sale.
If this is the same AIM-E of last year thread?
http://www.snipershide.com/shooting/elr-beyond-1000-yards/178142-xm408-heading-jsoc-socom.html
then it's clear it's pure hype...since the program according to the commercial brochure, is nothing more and nothing less than a Point Mass solver, the same that can be purchased on a $ 20 app.
Last edited:
Having very recent hands on experience with it, I can assure you it is not hype and it is well beyond anything thats an "app". The commercial brochure lacks a lot of information and is a very "vanilla" representation.
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I meant that the ballistics engine of AIM-E is the well-known Point Mass, a solver that is used by all the apps that can be purchased for $20. So, there is nothing new or improved.
Now, in terms of features and always according to the documentation, AIM-E is also nothing new or improved.
Most full-fledged packages like Patagonia's CB1 do more indeed. Like real-time GPS, Target coordinates, Kestrel auto-feed over Bluetooth, etc, etc and in fact have more features. We can also mention FFS as the other possible contender (I have an older version too so I'm used to it)
The brochure statement "available on multiple platforms" is also misleading, since "all platforms" only means Windows Mobile.
I truly don't get where is the critical value of this software. Does it work with G1 and G7 BCs ?
Last edited:
Do you base your statement on having actually used this program or from making assumptions on what you think you know it does from a brochure? My statement is based on having used it. Given your statement above, I am certain you have not.
Of course I'm basing my comments on the debate from the old thread and the available information from the company.
That's why I posed some questions along them with the hope of someone with actual experience in the product could shed some light on the subject.
My point is, where is the critical value of this software given its Point Mass solver and current listing of features? So far I don't see it. But if you can tell something about it, please go ahead, I'm truly interested.
I'm not saying in any possible way, that the software is not a good one, just trying to understand where lies the improved or new side of it.
That's why I posed some questions along them with the hope of someone with actual experience in the product could shed some light on the subject.
My point is, where is the critical value of this software given its Point Mass solver and current listing of features? So far I don't see it. But if you can tell something about it, please go ahead, I'm truly interested.
I'm not saying in any possible way, that the software is not a good one, just trying to understand where lies the improved or new side of it.
Every method of solving for trajectories is more or less the same. Point mass is the best practical solver of the bunch in that it makes the fewest simplifying assumptions. Siacci and Pejsa have to simplify things to make the math solvable, which introduces errors in weird cases. But that's a pretty minor, even insignificant difference for normal shooting even at very long range.
Where programs differ is in the data - garbage in garbage out. The Pejsa-based solvers seem popular here, despite being theoretically worse solvers because they allow for you to fine tune the drag data on your own. If you do that, you can come out ahead of the standard drag functions (G1, G7, etc) typically (but not necessarily) used by point mass solvers. There is no reason a point mass solver cannot do the same thing - there may even be some that do. I'm not up to speed on what's out there.
The bottom line is that nothing "standard" works perfectly at very long range - but the reason for that is that we have poor drag data, not because one solver is better or worse than another. The ideal situation would be to use a point mass solver with doppler measured drag coefficients for each bullet. Don't hold your breath on that since it's prohibitively expensive* to collect that data. Until that gets cheap (maybe some day...), we'll have to be content with tweaking the data we put into whatever program we're using.
*Lapua has done a little of this. http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2009/02/lapua-offers-radar-tested-drag-data-for-lapua-bullets/ , but it's not a wide spread practice.
Where programs differ is in the data - garbage in garbage out. The Pejsa-based solvers seem popular here, despite being theoretically worse solvers because they allow for you to fine tune the drag data on your own. If you do that, you can come out ahead of the standard drag functions (G1, G7, etc) typically (but not necessarily) used by point mass solvers. There is no reason a point mass solver cannot do the same thing - there may even be some that do. I'm not up to speed on what's out there.
The bottom line is that nothing "standard" works perfectly at very long range - but the reason for that is that we have poor drag data, not because one solver is better or worse than another. The ideal situation would be to use a point mass solver with doppler measured drag coefficients for each bullet. Don't hold your breath on that since it's prohibitively expensive* to collect that data. Until that gets cheap (maybe some day...), we'll have to be content with tweaking the data we put into whatever program we're using.
*Lapua has done a little of this. http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2009/02/lapua-offers-radar-tested-drag-data-for-lapua-bullets/ , but it's not a wide spread practice.
Last edited:
PapaZeroThree, glad you got hands on. I spoke to Lyman today and he asked me to tone down my earlier posting. The Tier One guys that tested AIM-E last month know what the deal is here. Less than 25 professionals have had the opportunity to field the technology. You clearly are in the loop and know who wants to own this software. Nobody else really matters. For the benefit of LastShot300: it's in the math, it's a NASA thing. If anybody is hell bent of getting a chance to shoot the system, the solution is simple. Go down to your local recruiter, sign up, do 4-6 years in your first enlistment, re-enlist, get to sniper school at Ft Bragg or Quantico, then work your way into devgru, marsoc or delta. Bam! You are "in like flint".
Last edited:
Will call the recruiter tomorrow, in the meantime is it possible to explain some if its features? I mean those whose make the software so "special", since clearly enough the ballistics engine is not one of them...I wonder what else could be obtained from NASA...are you joking, right?
On the other hand, I don't know if Lyman wanted to make it so secret, given the public demos he made the past year about AIM-E.
A former british sniper very aware of this product told me that AI after the "experience" decided not to play with it anymore given the issues they had. Comments?
Last edited:
Ok, so there is nothing of value to say on AIM-E... Will tell Lyman to update the brochure and illustrate us on this "NASA" thing. I still wonder why AI ran away so fast about this "march of time and technology"
The government used the Cheytac solution too, the A, B, C, "Fieldcraft" which couldnt even build a bullet profile, during a demo in Canada to include the JTF types, I built a profile on my iPhone and had them within a .1 at 1000.
There is government versions of Field Firing Solutions, even versions that removed the spindrift option. Ashbury provides.
The military uses the Horus programs, from well back, the Horus software was well out front back in its day, lots of government interest and its library is full of military weapons systems.
But at then end of the day, none of those have a self destruct feature ( cue the music)
overseas governments use lapua data, Patagonia, clearly governments taste it all.
As an FYI, while "theoretically" something should be better, but clearly it's not, as both Patagonia & FFS are the reigning champs. Its easy a trip to Gunsite and see for yourself. And yes their data is backed by Doppler curves as neither are straight Pesja, but variations which is why they reign over all the Point Mass flavors. I guess with a self destruct code they'd be more apetitizing to governments. It never ceases to amaze me how people can sell it.
There is government versions of Field Firing Solutions, even versions that removed the spindrift option. Ashbury provides.
The military uses the Horus programs, from well back, the Horus software was well out front back in its day, lots of government interest and its library is full of military weapons systems.
But at then end of the day, none of those have a self destruct feature ( cue the music)
overseas governments use lapua data, Patagonia, clearly governments taste it all.
As an FYI, while "theoretically" something should be better, but clearly it's not, as both Patagonia & FFS are the reigning champs. Its easy a trip to Gunsite and see for yourself. And yes their data is backed by Doppler curves as neither are straight Pesja, but variations which is why they reign over all the Point Mass flavors. I guess with a self destruct code they'd be more apetitizing to governments. It never ceases to amaze me how people can sell it.
Ooooo.... And yet you're here, and apparently Lyman too, as he cried last week to remove the image of the brochure one of the special people posted. Top secret please remove.
Funny thing is, I never attempted to sell anyone on anything, what people dislike is, I call it like it is, and been around long enough to know the Wizard isn't real but a little man behind a curtain flipping levers. As if I'm unaware of the guys with the Tier One ears bad mouthing me before their secret sauce is unveiled. Usually here, and usually by me. Discredit the messagner and the message, gets lost. Ask them about the loophole emails i got and how I laughed at their attempts to protect that little secret. I got the sales pitch from Lyman at the same time as AI, and much like them, I rolled my eyes, he was clearly uninformed what was out there and what was important. Which accounts for the new round of talks, clearly someone emailed him a list of buzz words and catch phrases. When open source information is top secret, well lets just say it reads like "Black Ops Missions" being told in a bar. Ask the operator about details and subject changes, real fast.
Remember, SH was here before them, and it will be here long after the Wizard is gone. They like to forget unlike some, I went to sniper school, I graduated, and still I'm not asking them to buy a thing, my detractors can't say that.
God Bless our Snipers, unless they disagree with Mark, Todd, Lyman, etc... Lol
Then why-oh-fucking-why do you even bother posting your shit here? Geez...you're like a broken record. It's always the same formula with your posts:
1. "I have something cool that you don't have"
2. "Even though I won't elaborate or show you anything, you'd better start envying me"
3. "No really, this is cooler and better than anything you will ever touch"
4. revert to inductive reasoning such as Appeal to Authority
5. act as though no one else here has ever worked at the tip of the spear
6. rinse repeat
First it's about a rifle, then it's a ballistic computer. What's next? Some new body armor or shaving cream? That shit may work with the Call of Duty kids, but some of us have been around the block and are sick of rolling our eyes at your shit.
Here is the top secret "thing" NASA worked out with Lyman...just read the commercial brochure and let me know...OK, it's not the engine (just another flavor of the old Point Mass, it's not the features (or lack of them thereof), no, no, no...it's the "Tier 1 OMG" !
http://
I don't dispute the guys who actually tried it, but since they are under oath to Lyman...who knows what's in there! Probably the best secret to keep is that actually there is no secret at all...
http://
I don't dispute the guys who actually tried it, but since they are under oath to Lyman...who knows what's in there! Probably the best secret to keep is that actually there is no secret at all...
Last edited by a moderator:
