-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Best ballistic calculator?
- Thread starter Slockem
- Start date
Over the years, I've tried Shooter, Strelok, Applied Ballistics, 4DOF, and a few others I can't remember offthe top of my head. There really isn't much difference in the actual calculators, per se. They all typically end up around 0.10 to 0.20 of each other. Strelok is really nice, but you need separate weather data. If you want standalone ballistics and weather, one of the Kestrel systems wil be great. For the price, the Hornady 4DOF Kestrel is really nice. You can find like new ones on here for about $400
@canezach is 100% spot on. I publish one so I know a little bit about them. They're more or less all the same in the back end. Essentially, one finger up your ass is about the same as any other finger up your ass. For phone app type stuff I really like KAC BulletFlight-M on Apple phones for it's very intuitive and easy to deal with interface but I hate it on Android. Strelok I really dislike the interface of period. Never underestimate the importance of having your DOPE written down. The first thing to fail in the field is common sense, the second thing to fail is a gadget.
4DoF is what I've been using since I got turned onto it ~4 years ago. Once properly set up, the dope is pretty spot on provided I pull my head out of my ass. There have been some features like the range cards added to it that make it extremely handy for matches. The biggest downer is if your bullet isn't in the 4DoF library, but there is still an included G1/G7 solver on board. I think the range card is $1, otherwise it's free, too.
Also to caveat on what others have said, 4DoF side of that solver is not the same behind the scenes as the other solvers. Most all of what's out there besides 4DoF and Lapua's 6DoF solvers are point mass BC solvers. Some have more intricacy to them and the ability to have multiple BC's or variable BC's through the velocity range, but they're still point mass solvers and there are some inherent (albeit sometimes very minor) errors that exist with such solvers. Where this really comes into play is the fact that BC and drag are more accurately Mach dependent, not necessarily velocity dependent. If conditions are always the same, then there is no difference, but if the temperature changes, for example, the mach number at the same velocity will change-- and that in itself will cause a BC shift (This is why 4DoF doesn't use density altitude, if anyone is wondering-- you can have the same DA at infinitely many different temperatures but the mach shift with temp is left unknown and results in errors). It may be very small, but it's there. Also, they historically don't handle aerodynamic jump especially well. A lot of the time it takes pretty serious ranges to expose these errors, and they're certainly better today than when I first started doing LR shooting in the mid 2000's.
Typically a BC solver is looking at very few inputs, BC, mass, diameter, length, maybe a couple of BC's for different velocity/mach ranges... 4DoF is has a CAD model of the bullet being used as a starting point to figure out various CoM, CoP, moments, coefficients etc.. about the physical projectile, then includes doppler recorded Cd vs. Mach data that encompass literally hundreds of inputs for each bullet in the library (This is why only 5 profiles fit on the 4DoF Kestrel). From that point it's doing a numerical physics/fluids solution that takes advantage of more of the specific physical properties of the specific bullet used in the library. Another way of thinking of it is instead of relating a 143 ELD-X to a G1 or G7 standard, 4DoF is using the "G143ELDX" standard. I don't have much experience with Lapua's 6DoF solver so I can't comment there, but of the typically used solvers I see used here in the states, 4DoF has the ability to be the most correct with correct inputs (I've used it several times, successfully, as a chronograph). I suppose 6DoF could theoretically be more accurate but I don't know how you are supposed to know 2 of those degrees of freedom. Haven't done much digging on that subject-- don't know anyone really that uses the Lapua solver.
How much any of that matters may come out in the wash depending on use-case, personal preferences, input errors, and how loose the screw behind the trigger is
Also to caveat on what others have said, 4DoF side of that solver is not the same behind the scenes as the other solvers. Most all of what's out there besides 4DoF and Lapua's 6DoF solvers are point mass BC solvers. Some have more intricacy to them and the ability to have multiple BC's or variable BC's through the velocity range, but they're still point mass solvers and there are some inherent (albeit sometimes very minor) errors that exist with such solvers. Where this really comes into play is the fact that BC and drag are more accurately Mach dependent, not necessarily velocity dependent. If conditions are always the same, then there is no difference, but if the temperature changes, for example, the mach number at the same velocity will change-- and that in itself will cause a BC shift (This is why 4DoF doesn't use density altitude, if anyone is wondering-- you can have the same DA at infinitely many different temperatures but the mach shift with temp is left unknown and results in errors). It may be very small, but it's there. Also, they historically don't handle aerodynamic jump especially well. A lot of the time it takes pretty serious ranges to expose these errors, and they're certainly better today than when I first started doing LR shooting in the mid 2000's.
Typically a BC solver is looking at very few inputs, BC, mass, diameter, length, maybe a couple of BC's for different velocity/mach ranges... 4DoF is has a CAD model of the bullet being used as a starting point to figure out various CoM, CoP, moments, coefficients etc.. about the physical projectile, then includes doppler recorded Cd vs. Mach data that encompass literally hundreds of inputs for each bullet in the library (This is why only 5 profiles fit on the 4DoF Kestrel). From that point it's doing a numerical physics/fluids solution that takes advantage of more of the specific physical properties of the specific bullet used in the library. Another way of thinking of it is instead of relating a 143 ELD-X to a G1 or G7 standard, 4DoF is using the "G143ELDX" standard. I don't have much experience with Lapua's 6DoF solver so I can't comment there, but of the typically used solvers I see used here in the states, 4DoF has the ability to be the most correct with correct inputs (I've used it several times, successfully, as a chronograph). I suppose 6DoF could theoretically be more accurate but I don't know how you are supposed to know 2 of those degrees of freedom. Haven't done much digging on that subject-- don't know anyone really that uses the Lapua solver.
How much any of that matters may come out in the wash depending on use-case, personal preferences, input errors, and how loose the screw behind the trigger is
Strelok interfaces with Weatherflow Weathermeter for Precision Shooters and Kestrel weather meters. Strelok also can obtain station pressure from the Internet (Meteo) and can store zeroing weather for different loads.
I have been using the 4 DOF for approximately the same time period and it has been very reliable. I wasn't aware that a range card was available. Is that purchased thru Kestrel? Thanks4DoF is what I've been using since I got turned onto it ~4 years ago. Once properly set up, the dope is pretty spot on provided I pull my head out of my ass. There have been some features like the range cards added to it that make it extremely handy for matches. The biggest downer is if your bullet isn't in the 4DoF library, but there is still an included G1/G7 solver on board. I think the range card is $1, otherwise it's free, too.
Also to caveat on what others have said, 4DoF side of that solver is not the same behind the scenes as the other solvers. Most all of what's out there besides 4DoF and Lapua's 6DoF solvers are point mass BC solvers. Some have more intricacy to them and the ability to have multiple BC's or variable BC's through the velocity range, but they're still point mass solvers and there are some inherent (albeit sometimes very minor) errors that exist with such solvers. Where this really comes into play is the fact that BC and drag are more accurately Mach dependent, not necessarily velocity dependent. If conditions are always the same, then there is no difference, but if the temperature changes, for example, the mach number at the same velocity will change-- and that in itself will cause a BC shift (This is why 4DoF doesn't use density altitude, if anyone is wondering-- you can have the same DA at infinitely many different temperatures but the mach shift with temp is left unknown and results in errors). It may be very small, but it's there. Also, they historically don't handle aerodynamic jump especially well. A lot of the time it takes pretty serious ranges to expose these errors, and they're certainly better today than when I first started doing LR shooting in the mid 2000's.
Typically a BC solver is looking at very few inputs, BC, mass, diameter, length, maybe a couple of BC's for different velocity/mach ranges... 4DoF is has a CAD model of the bullet being used as a starting point to figure out various CoM, CoP, moments, coefficients etc.. about the physical projectile, then includes doppler recorded Cd vs. Mach data that encompass literally hundreds of inputs for each bullet in the library (This is why only 5 profiles fit on the 4DoF Kestrel). From that point it's doing a numerical physics/fluids solution that takes advantage of more of the specific physical properties of the specific bullet used in the library. Another way of thinking of it is instead of relating a 143 ELD-X to a G1 or G7 standard, 4DoF is using the "G143ELDX" standard. I don't have much experience with Lapua's 6DoF solver so I can't comment there, but of the typically used solvers I see used here in the states, 4DoF has the ability to be the most correct with correct inputs (I've used it several times, successfully, as a chronograph). I suppose 6DoF could theoretically be more accurate but I don't know how you are supposed to know 2 of those degrees of freedom. Haven't done much digging on that subject-- don't know anyone really that uses the Lapua solver.
How much any of that matters may come out in the wash depending on use-case, personal preferences, input errors, and how loose the screw behind the trigger is
Similar threads
