Ballistics program
- Thread starter Safariman
- Start date
I've started using 4DOF.. there's a couple of episodes on the Hornady Podcast that convinced me.
I'm gonna try 4DOF on my phone.
I'm the same with AB, I hate their App and also the number it spits out is off considerably compared to my true dope and the other calculators, I'm assuming I have an error in there some where but I can't find it for the life of me, I've tried several times
I'm currently shooting Hornady bullets but will likely go back to Bergers when they become available again so I'll just use their G7 calculations.
I ran the numbers from 4DOF beside what strelok had and it was .1 difference at 2000 yards for my 250gr A-tips
I'm the same with AB, I hate their App and also the number it spits out is off considerably compared to my true dope and the other calculators, I'm assuming I have an error in there some where but I can't find it for the life of me, I've tried several times
I'm currently shooting Hornady bullets but will likely go back to Bergers when they become available again so I'll just use their G7 calculations.
I ran the numbers from 4DOF beside what strelok had and it was .1 difference at 2000 yards for my 250gr A-tips
They have a lot of competitive bullets in their library now. Bergers for sure are in there. Long range bullets not hunting bullets/short range stuff.
AB with custom curves is hands down best solver out there. Buy a kestrel is the easy answer but if you are cheap, buy the AB app and the custom curves for each caliber you shoot.
It's comical to me how bad the other solver/ballistic Apps are when compared to Strelok Pro (which is still working for me on an iPhone, for now).
They all use the same math (based on weather, gravity, MV, and BC), which is why it's so annoying that all the different companies want to pretend like they discovered some amazing magic shit unbeknownst to everyone else that only they've got... and then overcomplicate the whole thing.
Like Hornady with their "axial form factor" nonsense and AB with their "custom drag curve" snake oil.
We don't need new nomenclature and/or it to do 1,000,000 things... we just need it to be simple to use and do like 5 or 6 things... for the same reasons most of us don't want/need a Horus/Tremor reticle with 9 zillion hashes that's like looking through a screen door when a X-mas tree reticle is already more than enough most of the time.
Doesn't anyone know a guy or have a kid who can design a solver/ballistic App that's as easy to use and straightforward as Strelok Pro..?
(*who also doesn't live in Russia)
Ridiculous.
They all use the same math (based on weather, gravity, MV, and BC), which is why it's so annoying that all the different companies want to pretend like they discovered some amazing magic shit unbeknownst to everyone else that only they've got... and then overcomplicate the whole thing.
Like Hornady with their "axial form factor" nonsense and AB with their "custom drag curve" snake oil.
We don't need new nomenclature and/or it to do 1,000,000 things... we just need it to be simple to use and do like 5 or 6 things... for the same reasons most of us don't want/need a Horus/Tremor reticle with 9 zillion hashes that's like looking through a screen door when a X-mas tree reticle is already more than enough most of the time.
Doesn't anyone know a guy or have a kid who can design a solver/ballistic App that's as easy to use and straightforward as Strelok Pro..?
(*who also doesn't live in Russia)
Ridiculous.
I have been getting back into the Hornady 4DOF, which is pretty neat. Especially if I can no longer get updates for Strelok Pro. However, I just paired my Kestrel with the Hornady app and it stopped calculating. I had to uninstall and then reinstall. To the designers - "You only had one job!"
Snake oil?It's comical to me how bad the other solver/ballistic Apps are when compared to Strelok Pro (which is still working for me on an iPhone, for now).
They all use the same math (based on weather, gravity, MV, and BC), which is why it's so annoying that all the different companies want to pretend like they discovered some amazing magic shit unbeknownst to everyone else that only they've got... and then overcomplicate the whole thing.
Like Hornady with their "axial form factor" nonsense and AB with their "custom drag curve" snake oil.
We don't need new nomenclature and/or it to do 1,000,000 things... we just need it to be simple to use and do like 5 or 6 things... for the same reasons most of us don't want/need a Horus/Tremor reticle with 9 zillion hashes that's like looking through a screen door when a X-mas tree reticle is already more than enough most of the time.
Doesn't anyone know a guy or have a kid who can design a solver/ballistic App that's as easy to use and straightforward as Strelok Pro..?
(*who also doesn't live in Russia)
Ridiculous.
Yea its total bullshit to shoot hundreds/thousands/tens of thousands bullets across Doppler to get not only the true BC (which is almost always wrong from manufactures) but also creates banded BC calculations that represent different BC at different MV's.
I mean who doesn't want to just click Custom Curve and not worry about your bullet trajectory out to transonic range.
There is a reason anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together is using AB.
You, you do it. Find that guy and hire him. WTF are YOU waiting on???
Yea gotta say out of all the programs I have used, the ab cc have been dead on within a tenth with a simple mv true at 2 points. Custom curves straight easy button at this point.
StrelokPro works fine on my iPhone and iPad today, just back from the range.
Most likely there will be no more update, so what….. nothing I tried works better
for me, why change?
I agree with this. maybe it's just me but I can't figure out how to make a zero offset without using the zero angle feature which I really don't want to use
4DOF to me is easy to use and very intuitive, AB is not but I haven't spent much time with it.
So the 4DOF Tips and Tricks episode of the Hornady Podcast covers this...
They talk about duplicating the profile then doing something.. can't remember what. I'll listen again tonight.
Think it was Impact Height and Width or something
I watched it. You can only do it if you use their zero angle feature instead of zero distance. which I will get used to eventually I am sure but just seems janky that every other calculator can do it normally but you must use their overly complicated system to come up with the same result.
edit- which I actually just realized is actually useless to me. I wanted to use for a zero offset for slapping on a Tarac but it maxes out a 20 mils
Last edited:
Yeah fair.
Having watched all the videos on BC vs CD v Mach calculators the maths is undeniable. But it does certainly seem like more inputs for the same result, in some cases.
According to the numbers 4DOF is putting out a 250 a-tip is a perfect match to the G7 curve, all the way out to 2 miles... I never ran it against any other bullets but I've never had any problems with Strelok.
Yeah certainly there will be some cases where it makes no difference at all.
I've used Strelok since I started shooting Rifles 2 years ago and noticed that with my .308 178gr ELDM BTHP Strelok would be slightly high inside 500m and low beyond.
Was only when I saw the Hornady video explaining the difference it funny understood why.
4DOF however seems to reflect what I was seeing down range.
I personally do NOT like the 4DOF app; it's just overly complicated but also more limited than most, as discussed above.
I kind of feel the same way about AB to a lesser extent; it's just not a very easy app to use IMO. And when comparing it to the others I do like, using trued velocity and b.c. values, I'm getting essentially the same answer or so close it doesn't matter for my purposes.
I don't think it's supported all that well any more but the one I like and use the most is MD Ballistics. To me at least it seems easier to use than AB or Strelok Pro (I spend way more $$ than I should on ballistic apps and do have all of these currently), and it does use density altitude which makes things easier. I like to use dope charts but when using the app on the range, this one seems to be the easiest/fastest I've tried to get a solution at a specific distance. You just roll the main screen up or down to adjust the range and the solution is right there. YMMV of course.
Downsides are that the reticle library is much less complete than Strelok, and the bullet library is comprehensive but hasn't been updated in a year or two. Both of those are easily overcome though.
I kind of feel the same way about AB to a lesser extent; it's just not a very easy app to use IMO. And when comparing it to the others I do like, using trued velocity and b.c. values, I'm getting essentially the same answer or so close it doesn't matter for my purposes.
I don't think it's supported all that well any more but the one I like and use the most is MD Ballistics. To me at least it seems easier to use than AB or Strelok Pro (I spend way more $$ than I should on ballistic apps and do have all of these currently), and it does use density altitude which makes things easier. I like to use dope charts but when using the app on the range, this one seems to be the easiest/fastest I've tried to get a solution at a specific distance. You just roll the main screen up or down to adjust the range and the solution is right there. YMMV of course.
Downsides are that the reticle library is much less complete than Strelok, and the bullet library is comprehensive but hasn't been updated in a year or two. Both of those are easily overcome though.
Here's the thing, finding one's BC isn't hard.
But, for whatever reason, like a lot of shit in this sport, lots of guys can't seem to figure it out... so there's always a market for "a better way" (even when it's the same damn thing called something different). Some even try to make it seem more complicated than it is for monetary gain or to try and get you to use their shit so they can push other products with it.
AB's "custom drag curves", for the most part, is a way to sell multi-BC data to Fudds who can't figure it out on their own... and if that load changes, that custom drag curve ain't so custom anymore. Besides the fact, most of the time, using a multi-BC is completely unnecessary anyway. Using a single BC is enough to win any PRS or other long-range match out to a mile and is exactly how it gets done most of the time. If one BC is not enough, the only things we need to figure out one's multi-BC is some known-distance targets at a few different intervals and a handful of rounds.
Strelok Pro isn't good because of the math or any of that shit, everybody has the same stuff in that regard. It's good because of the simple interface (GUI) and how easy it makes it to figure out one's MV and BC data, and then implement it without being delayed by a steep learning curve.
But, for whatever reason, like a lot of shit in this sport, lots of guys can't seem to figure it out... so there's always a market for "a better way" (even when it's the same damn thing called something different). Some even try to make it seem more complicated than it is for monetary gain or to try and get you to use their shit so they can push other products with it.
AB's "custom drag curves", for the most part, is a way to sell multi-BC data to Fudds who can't figure it out on their own... and if that load changes, that custom drag curve ain't so custom anymore. Besides the fact, most of the time, using a multi-BC is completely unnecessary anyway. Using a single BC is enough to win any PRS or other long-range match out to a mile and is exactly how it gets done most of the time. If one BC is not enough, the only things we need to figure out one's multi-BC is some known-distance targets at a few different intervals and a handful of rounds.
Strelok Pro isn't good because of the math or any of that shit, everybody has the same stuff in that regard. It's good because of the simple interface (GUI) and how easy it makes it to figure out one's MV and BC data, and then implement it without being delayed by a steep learning curve.
Last edited:
First of all, finding BC is not easy. Alot of people tweak their MV along with the BC and end up with shitty, unreliable data because they don't understand what they are doing. To me, its absolutely retarded to change multiple variables to try and hit a data point that matches up, when there are infinite possibilities that are difficult to proof. So you change ONE variable, the BC to keep your data clean and consistent.
Second, BC's are not static. They change with different velocity ranges. So a solution that does not account for this, is giving very limited solution that has to be proofed out, such as G7 which is only slightly better than G1 due to the bullet designs the drag models are based off.
You don't seem to understand how custom curves work. If your load changes, the MV which is the only real variable that will change, (you should be checking zero, MV each time you shoot/compete to verify nothing changed, and if it did, update the MV and correct the zero), the CC accounts for this. The custom drag curves are just a more accurate predictor of where the bullet is going to go, using much more reliable and accurate data (BC, BC consistency, What the BC bands are) than the mostly incorrect data.
There is a reason just about everyone who is balls deep into this (serious competitors, ect) are using an AB kestral with the custom curves, because if its a popular bullet with ALOT of data over the AB radar, you will end up with extremely accurate firing solutions that are almost always within a tenth out to the practical range of the cartridge.
The two reasons to use AB is:
A. Much more accurate BC than the advertised BC.
B. Access to Custom Curves, that along with A, result in a more accurate firing solution than G7.
Going from a normal AB kestral using G7 to upgraded elite with CC, there is a significant difference in how accuate your solution is, and more significant as the range extended. The only time you really see issues with a CC is with a new bullet that has very little data points so it has not been dialed in. With that being said, you will run into same issues with a new bullet as the G1/G7 are most likely wrong from advertised as well.
Strelok /Pro is a shitty solver with a much more user friendly interface for people cheap people. I have owned both since they were released, along with a dozen other apps and solvers tested and used over the years. Most people are too cheap/poor/dumb/ignorant to know the difference so they make excuses why their free or $10 app is just as good as what everyone who takes this shit serious is using. Then you have the people who are happy to hit a 10moa steel target and don't really care because they are not shooting small targets where the solver increases your hit %.
I agree about Strelok being cheap. I recently bought AP, which was $29, as opposed to Strelok at $12. I have also noticed discrepancies in solutions with the same factors between Strelok and nearly all other solvers. Maybe it was a russian plot to get us to shoot crappy.
You don't need to go on a tirade because you don't know as much as you think you know.
I'm not "cheap/poor/dumb/ignorant", I just disagree with you, because you're wrong, and you clearly suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Not sure if this target is small enough for you, but it was at 750 yards and was shot off a cattle gate/Shmedium in 10mph wind earlier today using the solution spit out by shitty $12 Strelok Pro:
Last edited:
I guess I'll stick with my crappy solver without custom curves to get an initial solution, and then record actual drops when I shoot. If you can true the solver to match actual drops I'm not sure it matters what the numbers are or how it got there.
I seem to recall Lowlight saying just a couple years ago that he was getting closer results with G1 values even though it's supposed to be for a flat base profile.
I seem to recall Lowlight saying just a couple years ago that he was getting closer results with G1 values even though it's supposed to be for a flat base profile.
You know why marksman and snipers historically had to build out DOPE? Their solvers didn't exist and/or sucked. There is a reason they recorded every shot in every condition and weather because as variables change, so does your firing solution. Its still a best guess even with a mountain of data (And who wants to pour through that shit anyway?)
So what happens when you go shoot somewhere with 7000 DA higher than you have shot before. All that sea level dope is meaningless. What happens when you change bullets or calibers and don't have hundreds/thousands of rounds recorded in your little dope book?
I am not saying you shouldn't proof your data and confirm your solver via testing. That is just good practice.
The point is , use the best tool you can to give you the best chance at making first round impacts in any condition. Better data and better formulas/algos are only going to increase your chance of making impacts.
This is why you follow guys like Litz and read up what they put out. They are breaking down alot of old BS and showing their testing and results so they can be challenged. Like good science should be.
So what happens when you go shoot somewhere with 7000 DA higher than you have shot before. All that sea level dope is meaningless. What happens when you change bullets or calibers and don't have hundreds/thousands of rounds recorded in your little dope book?
I am not saying you shouldn't proof your data and confirm your solver via testing. That is just good practice.
The point is , use the best tool you can to give you the best chance at making first round impacts in any condition. Better data and better formulas/algos are only going to increase your chance of making impacts.
This is why you follow guys like Litz and read up what they put out. They are breaking down alot of old BS and showing their testing and results so they can be challenged. Like good science should be.
DBD
You must have gotten into AB after they did the software upgrade and wiped out everyone's data. Opened it up one day and everything is gone, factory reset. That was the last day using AB for me. It never seemed to work all that well for me anyway. I could get it setup and trued and a month later nothing was lining up with the real world so it is back to truing it again. I had better things to work on than playing with a ballistics solver so I moved on.
I'm glad it's working well for you but it's not for me. I know a lot of people that have moved on for the same or similar reasons too.
You must have gotten into AB after they did the software upgrade and wiped out everyone's data. Opened it up one day and everything is gone, factory reset. That was the last day using AB for me. It never seemed to work all that well for me anyway. I could get it setup and trued and a month later nothing was lining up with the real world so it is back to truing it again. I had better things to work on than playing with a ballistics solver so I moved on.
I'm glad it's working well for you but it's not for me. I know a lot of people that have moved on for the same or similar reasons too.
That's kind of my point: it doesn't matter, the principles (and math) are the same with whatever one chooses to use. Gravity and physics don't care if one spent a few more dollars than someone else.
There are examples of "hype vs reality" everywhere one looks in this sport: ammo not good enough? better replace that Rockcrusher with a Zero press... or maybe you need $600 dies? or a $600 priming tool? is your $3000 scope holding you back? maybe spend $5000 for something maybe ~1-2% better from a smaller company that probably can't do shit for you if it goes down right before a match because their warranty policy is "you're a poor if you didn't buy a backup" lol.
My complaint with most of the solvers is that they're just too convoluted. Most seem engineered to be more about branding than being a good solver, and I hope that changes. BC doesn't need to be, and shouldn't be, hard to figure out: enter the number on the box of projectiles to start, shoot them, hone it in by truing it, maybe play with whether G1 or G7 works better or whether finding/entering multi-BCs is worth the hassle (almost always isn't), done, that's it.
I appreciate tools that work, and most of the time I'd rather they do a few things, or even just one thing, really well, than 100 different things with headaches.
Guitar players see this shit all the time: I have a $3000+ box that sits in a rack collecting dust (Fractal AxeFX 3), state-of-the-art tech built to mimic every great guitar amplifier ever created... I still end up using an old Marshall head with a $50 distortion pedal on everything, because most of the time it's the better tool for the job.
Last edited:
1) Even good Chrono's have error, I'm not against tweaking MV around 15 fps but ya truing BC makes the most sense but if you see a big jump during a math you more than likely had a velocity increase.
2) BC changes with MV but so does your drag curve, it doesn't just shift up and down.
3) sure the drag curves may be more accurate at certain distances but I've never had an issue of more than a click or 2 using a BC calculator, and even then could have been enviro's weren't updated.
4) I do agree that AB seems to have the most data. the AB app blows compared to 4DOF or Strelok. I only played a bit using a Kestrel with AB and the others are still much easier. if AB would come up with a more friendly UI I'd love to switch.
5) AB vs Others data I haven't had a chance to actually compare them at distances where it seems to matter. They are so close for the most part. 4DOF vs AB data seems to start to differ at about 2500 yards for my bullet I don't have a ton of opportunity to shoot that far.
6) If you wanna shit on cheap solvers go hard but they do the same damn thing.
I suggest you watch the Hornady podcast "Why use 4DOF"That's kind of my point: it doesn't matter, the principles (and math) are the same with whatever one chooses to use. Gravity and physics don't care if one spent a few more dollars than someone else.
There are examples of "hype vs reality" everywhere one looks in this sport: ammo not good enough? better replace that Rockcrusher with a Zero press... or maybe you need $600 dies? or a $600 priming tool? is your $3000 scope holding you back? maybe spend $5000 for something maybe ~1-2% better from a smaller company that probably can't do shit for you if it goes down right before a match because their warranty policy is "you're a poor if you didn't buy a backup" lol.
My complaint with most of the solvers is that they're just too convoluted. Most seem engineered to be more about branding than being a good solver, and I hope that changes. BC doesn't need to be, and shouldn't be, hard to figure out: enter the number on the box of projectiles to start, shoot them, hone it in by truing it, maybe play with whether G1 or G7 works better or whether finding/entering multi-BCs is worth the hassle (almost always isn't), done, that's it.
I appreciate tools that work, and most of the time I'd rather they do a few things, or even just one thing, really well, than 100 different things with headaches.
Guitar players see this shit all the time: I have a $3000+ box that sits in a rack collecting dust (Fractal AxeFX 3), state-of-the-art tech built to mimic every great guitar amplifier ever created... I still end up using an old Marshall head with a $50 distortion pedal on everything, because most of the time it's the better tool for the job.
There's a lot more to truing than you realize.
Thanks for trying to help.
But, I don't have any questions about the App, I get how it works.
I just think the Hornady App is bad and using their axial form factor is an overcomplicated/retarded way to go about it lol. I'm not a Hornady hater either.
I've reached out to a Green Beret buddy who's also a talented programmer... I'm trying to get him to design an App that's easy enough for toddlers and/or crusty Fudds to use, lean and mean, no fat... we'll see what happens hahaha.
Last edited:
I think if you used geoballistics you would like it. Might put a suggestion into them for the “easy” bc truing and I bet they might be willing to incorporate it since they’ve had the muzzle velocity trying for awhile.
It’s the jbm engine which is my go to.
Not trying to piss you off but, I don't think you watched much of the vid or, you've mis-understood it.
They weren't talking only about what their app does like a sales pitch, they were talking about the other ways which are bandied around & why & how they don't really work or are very difficult to achieve.
For example, 4DOF is the only app I'm aware of which calculates the zero distance as an elevation angle. If you use the zero angle setting, you only have to zero once for that load & only input the new environmentals for each shooting session & the app automatically recalculates the new zero & the trajectories from there.
The AB app has a much larger projectile selection but, I find 4DOF easier to use with the range cards & HUDs I can set up.
I have to admit it took me a while to work 4DOF out initially but I prefer it now.
Revic Ops is free and has a pretty simple UI. Outputs have been right in line with AB, 4DOF, and real life for multiple profiles.
At longer ranges, I've rarely seen AB & 4DOF agree. This always perplexed me until I realized that 4DOF allows for the change in zero every time the enviro's are changed & I don't think that AB does.
All this carrying on, figured I'd post the simple way that I normally shake out what BC to use with a load/bullet:
Step 1 - put a solid no BS zero on your gun at 100 yards. Check your height-over-bore with calipers from the action's vent hole to the middle of your rings/mount, enter it correctly, don't guess. Parallax knob, use it, don't be that guy.
Step 2 - Update your solver to the current weather and input whatever ballpark BC you can find on the box or on the web for that particular projectile you're shooting into your solver. I find that with most longe-range bullets, G7 is best, and I'd try that first, though some of the manufacturers only list a G1 like with DTACs or Match Burners, in that case just go to https://www.jbmballistics.com/cgi-bin/jbmgf-5.1.cgi and do the conversion to get what number to enter. If a solver doesn't have info on your particular bullet, don't flip out, you probably just need length, which can be found here: https://www.jbmballistics.com/ballistics/lengths/lengths.shtml
Step 3 - shoot over a chrono to get your MV, then confirm that this lines up with whatever your solver spits out for DOPE at 400-600 yards (if it doesn't line up, your zero probably isn't right, see Step 1, but be honest with yourself that it wasn't just off because you suck at shooting and/or reloading).
Step 4 - shoot farther, past 600 yards... one target is all you need, but more is better. I use 750 yards, 1000 yards, and then 1250 yards.
This is where the "magic of simplicity" happens with Strelok Pro as it allows one to adjust, in easy-to-understand clicks, up or down, to match what your POI was versus what elevation DOPE it had initially spit out, to then recalculate the new BC for you (which you then shoot again to confirm).
Let's say it said you needed 8mils, but that was a little high and 7.9 is more like it, you'd tell it that. If it took less clicks, your BC number will go up, more clicks, BC number goes down. If you are printing dead on your waterline (even only using one target), then you can be confident that your BC is looking good and your impacts will more than likely be within a tenth or so up or down on any other targets until it goes transonic and goes to shit.
The only drawback I really see that comes with using easy-to-understand clicks to adjust one's BC, is that your scope's click values only go to the tenth (though Strelok Pro will let you enter another decibel place if you want, which is helpful once you get used to playing with it). This puts the calculated BC in a sort of "grey area" that can be close but not perfect, if you want it perfect since you're already in the neighborhood and really close, you just need to spend a few rounds playing with it to get it dead nuts.
An easy way to do this (with Strelok Pro at least) is to just true the BC at a few different distances, and then watch for when it changes the DOPE on maybe one or two distances that aren't exactly right, but leaves the ones you already know are POA=POI alone. For instance, many times I find my BC at 750 yards is perfect, but it's printing a click or 2 high at 1000, I'll then play with the solver a little to where 1000 is on and the DOPE at 750 didn't change.
Voila, one can do this with like 5 rounds, maybe less.
Step 1 - put a solid no BS zero on your gun at 100 yards. Check your height-over-bore with calipers from the action's vent hole to the middle of your rings/mount, enter it correctly, don't guess. Parallax knob, use it, don't be that guy.
Step 2 - Update your solver to the current weather and input whatever ballpark BC you can find on the box or on the web for that particular projectile you're shooting into your solver. I find that with most longe-range bullets, G7 is best, and I'd try that first, though some of the manufacturers only list a G1 like with DTACs or Match Burners, in that case just go to https://www.jbmballistics.com/cgi-bin/jbmgf-5.1.cgi and do the conversion to get what number to enter. If a solver doesn't have info on your particular bullet, don't flip out, you probably just need length, which can be found here: https://www.jbmballistics.com/ballistics/lengths/lengths.shtml
Step 3 - shoot over a chrono to get your MV, then confirm that this lines up with whatever your solver spits out for DOPE at 400-600 yards (if it doesn't line up, your zero probably isn't right, see Step 1, but be honest with yourself that it wasn't just off because you suck at shooting and/or reloading).
Step 4 - shoot farther, past 600 yards... one target is all you need, but more is better. I use 750 yards, 1000 yards, and then 1250 yards.
This is where the "magic of simplicity" happens with Strelok Pro as it allows one to adjust, in easy-to-understand clicks, up or down, to match what your POI was versus what elevation DOPE it had initially spit out, to then recalculate the new BC for you (which you then shoot again to confirm).
Let's say it said you needed 8mils, but that was a little high and 7.9 is more like it, you'd tell it that. If it took less clicks, your BC number will go up, more clicks, BC number goes down. If you are printing dead on your waterline (even only using one target), then you can be confident that your BC is looking good and your impacts will more than likely be within a tenth or so up or down on any other targets until it goes transonic and goes to shit.
The only drawback I really see that comes with using easy-to-understand clicks to adjust one's BC, is that your scope's click values only go to the tenth (though Strelok Pro will let you enter another decibel place if you want, which is helpful once you get used to playing with it). This puts the calculated BC in a sort of "grey area" that can be close but not perfect, if you want it perfect since you're already in the neighborhood and really close, you just need to spend a few rounds playing with it to get it dead nuts.
An easy way to do this (with Strelok Pro at least) is to just true the BC at a few different distances, and then watch for when it changes the DOPE on maybe one or two distances that aren't exactly right, but leaves the ones you already know are POA=POI alone. For instance, many times I find my BC at 750 yards is perfect, but it's printing a click or 2 high at 1000, I'll then play with the solver a little to where 1000 is on and the DOPE at 750 didn't change.
Voila, one can do this with like 5 rounds, maybe less.
Last edited:
yeah, before trueing I see some difference as well. But it’s relatively minor in terms of the “try dope” outputs.
Applied Ballistics-Custom Curve with DSF @1.000
4-DoF with axial Form Factor @ 1.000
GeoBallistics
Revic Ops
A difference of 0.13 mils for initial try dope at 1,000 yards between the 4 solvers. For context, that’s a difference of about 23fps in MV, a DSF of 0.981, axial FF of 0.965. After initial trueing, they tend to line up well at closer & further distances.
@CK1.0 Just an FYI, Revic has an easy trueing menu. AB has a MV and DSF trueing option (at least in a Kestrel), & GeoBallistics also has an easy MV trueing function. For most, you can just input range and real life adjustment, and the solver will output adjustments to MV/BC/FF/DSF.
The whole idea is that if you zero at 100 yards environmentals won’t change your zero enough to matter.
200 yard zeros and more are another matter.
Nigga you cray cray.
Depending on your accuracy requirements, BC offsets as compared to a Standard curve may produce acceptable results for you, as it has for many shooters in bygone years, but a more accurate method HAS arrived and it IS better.
In todays day and age of technology, saying that using G7 or G1 standard curves and applying a BC offset in order force a poor approximation of your projectile's drag curve is just as good as Custom Curves, is some back woods, sister cousin, mouth breathing neanderthal bullshit.
Try offsetting your test bullet to the G7 standard curve? Your shit's gonna be whack.
Try offsetting your test bullet to the G1 standard curve? Might as well just throw rocks at the motherfucker.
Custom curves map the test bullet and put the ACTUAL measured curve of YOUR chosen projectile in your ballistic solver.
Maybe it's just me, but I like placing first round hits WHERE I want them on target, not just somewhere ON target...
IDK, my accuracy requirements are to hit a .4 Mil wide or smaller plate (hopefully in the center, if my wind hold is right) at any distance from 100 out to 1250+ yards until it goes transonic, and I get first-round hits all the time.
You don't need to tell me to get ready because I stay ready, first-round hit, single BC:
