In Ballistic for iOS, I get better drop data if I use G1 than if I use G7. This happens whether I enter the actual G7 data or convert it from G1. In any case, which data is valid? I haven’t had a chance to shoot the distance so I can’t test it right now
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
G1/G7 Discrepancy
- Thread starter mdmp5
- Start date
If you haven't shot it, how do you know it's better?
Generally speaking, the two will give acceptable (and very similar) results from about mach 2 to mach 3, which covers a whole lot of shooting scenarios. It's really only at very high velocities and in the transonic region that you see difference. In the transonic region, reality is usually in between the two. In the high velocity region G7 is way better for typical HPBT bullets.
Generally speaking, the two will give acceptable (and very similar) results from about mach 2 to mach 3, which covers a whole lot of shooting scenarios. It's really only at very high velocities and in the transonic region that you see difference. In the transonic region, reality is usually in between the two. In the high velocity region G7 is way better for typical HPBT bullets.
Better as in the data shows a few hundred yards more until it goes subsonic, and less drop at the same distance.
But you don't really know which one is truly "better" until you actually shoot it, now do you? Just because the G1 numbers show it has less drop and less drag, does not mean that it is reflecting the reality of the actual projectile when fired. The G1 projections may very well be accurate to what your bullet does, but then again, it may be the G7 that reflects your reality. Why don't you shoot it first and then let the bullet decide which one is giving you better results?
Either way, you should not see a significant difference out to 1000 yards unless you are shooting a very unusual system. 99% of the time, pick G7. But if you're seeing major differences, that means something is wrong with your input. A G1 will predict a lower transonic drag than G7 if the two are matched at Mach 2.5, which is typical. But the G7 will be closer to reality.
The transonic region has a lot of associated uncertainty, however, and it's difficult at best to see exactly what's going on in that range. So keep that in mind.
The transonic region has a lot of associated uncertainty, however, and it's difficult at best to see exactly what's going on in that range. So keep that in mind.
You need to shoot and then draw the conclusion as others have said. You may be surprised at the answer.
You might want to research the various "Gs" more and ask yourself why anybody shooting long-for-caliber boat-tail bullets would ever use "G1 BC" for a modern, newly-designed bullet. Once upon a time there was ONLY 1 "G". Now there are 7 or more. And keep in mind that there IS NO "FIXED" BC FOR A BULLET ALL BY ITSELF. BC is determined and calculated for SPECIFIC "LOADS" IN SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. And BC is also used to compare LIKE BULLETS/LOADS WITH SINGLE-VARIABLE DIFFERENCES. You can't use the "BC" of a .308-caliber bullet to compare it to a .224-caliber bullet or even two .308-caliber bullets with differences in weight or even "base style" since a "flat-based" bullet is more efficient at converting pressure to energy than a boat-tailed bullet is. With a boat-tailed bullet the pressure is trying to compress the boat tail as well as pushing forward on the "base". On a flat-based bullet the pressure is acting only on the base and all the push is forward. And BIGGER BASES WITH MORE AREA ARE BETTER. That's why a 21,000-psi max .45 ACP cartridge can use only 4-5 grains of a "fast" pistol powder to get 230 grains of flat-based bullet to 800+ fps in a 5" barrel while "magnum" rifle cartridges need 60,000+ psi and dozens of times more grains of slower powder in a much longer barrel to get similar bullet weight to 3-4 times the velocity using boat-tail bullets.
Are you suggesting if I load up some .45 ACP rounds for my Savage 10, I should seat my bullets with the G7 drag model on the boat tail of the bullet rather than the flat base?
I am aware what the Gs are. Ballistic defaults to G1 with the known G1 BC. To get G7, it must perform a conversion, which is questionable. Not every bullet mfr has extrapolated G7 data; only one I use that does is Berger. Sierra is only G1, and this is even for their 197 SMK which has almost no qualities of a G1 projectile.
Yeah. That's what I was "suggesting" with my reply about pressure, bullet diameter, bullet shape, base area, etc and the use of G-types and BC based on conventional wisdom that's often incorrect. It wasn't a generalized example of the science being the ballistics. It was a specific suggestion to use .45 ACP in your Savage even though you didn't mention rifle make or model, cartridge, etc. It also wasn't a suggestion to use the internet and the almost endless amount of information and knowledge that exists on it to educate yourself instead of asking others to provide you with "answers".
Please shoot , and believe the bullet . Custom drag curves are working better for me than G1 or G7 .
The devil is in the detail , and without actually shooting , with your particular barrel , you don’t
have the detail .
The devil is in the detail , and without actually shooting , with your particular barrel , you don’t
have the detail .
Yeah I know, I gotta get out to the distance. Soon enough. I was just trying to figure out why the G7 profile was putting out data way short of the G1. I also was wondering how valid the conversion from G1 to G7 is with the program. For example, 197 SMK has a G1 of 780 according to Sierra. The program converts that to a G7 of 390.
Ok let me see if I can help somewhat here. It appears their are some misunderstandings of what things are.
First thing to address is "G1" vs "G7". To put this simply, these are standards. There are many of them, and not all are even a number. Gsp is a Sphere, RA4 is a Rimfire standard. However these are drag models. They represent different bullet designs. From be it boat tail, secant ogives, tangent ogives, musket balls whatever that standard is. Now those standards have a known drag curve. When you generate a "BC" what you are doing is comparing the performance of the bullet you are testing vs the performance of the standard at a specific velocity. So that BC number that you get is 100% correct at the velocity it was tested at, but as the bullet slows down it is no longer "perfect" so to speak.
This is slightly misleading, because a bullet might be very close to the performance of the standard for a while. Or it might not. This is why you may or may not see a descrpency when you shoot vs a prediction. Now let us complicate things a little bit more. There are more than one dozen standards. Finding the perfect match for a bullet can be as complicated as creating a BC table (more about BC tables later). So a bullet may fall between two standards. It can get even more complicated than that. At one velocity it might be closer to one standard, and at a different velocity closer to a different standard.
So one thing shooters have done for a while is use a banded BC. What this means is they take 5 or 10 or more and generate a table. So that they can have something that better resembles the bullets drag model. This allows you to build a simple "curve" to follow the bullets performance. It was a temporary solution for a long time to a bigger problem.
The real answer though, is to stop using BCs. They come from a time when tables were generated over the course of days. Before we had computers in our pocket and the use of a BC is not needed anymore. Its out dated to be honest. What you should be using is the actual bullets drag model. Instead of comparing one bullet against another to generate a solution (this is what you are doing when you use a BC) you should be just using that bullets actual drag data. This is what a CDM is.
The only reason you should ever look at a BC is if you want to compare one bullet to another. You must take care to make sure the two BCs you compare are generated at the same velocity against the same atmospheric standard (ICAO vs ASM). Not all companies genearate BCs or firing solutions using the same atmospheric standard which can generate an error of 2% easily. Even then, you can get a high bc from a bullet that is not stable through the transonic zone. Another thing that getting a general BC doens't tell you is consistency. You see when bullet lots are tested there is an "SD" for the BC so to speak. Not every bullet performs the same, and some companies are much more consistent than others. Shooters generally shoot with an "averaged" BC which is going to represent the middle ground of that box of bullets. Some bullets will have a much bigger spread of SD and consistency than others. So you should be looking for the most consistent high performance bullets you can get, not necessarily just the highest "BC". But you should also really not be using BCs. This is 2018, and its easy to just use the actual drag model for that bullet.
First thing to address is "G1" vs "G7". To put this simply, these are standards. There are many of them, and not all are even a number. Gsp is a Sphere, RA4 is a Rimfire standard. However these are drag models. They represent different bullet designs. From be it boat tail, secant ogives, tangent ogives, musket balls whatever that standard is. Now those standards have a known drag curve. When you generate a "BC" what you are doing is comparing the performance of the bullet you are testing vs the performance of the standard at a specific velocity. So that BC number that you get is 100% correct at the velocity it was tested at, but as the bullet slows down it is no longer "perfect" so to speak.
This is slightly misleading, because a bullet might be very close to the performance of the standard for a while. Or it might not. This is why you may or may not see a descrpency when you shoot vs a prediction. Now let us complicate things a little bit more. There are more than one dozen standards. Finding the perfect match for a bullet can be as complicated as creating a BC table (more about BC tables later). So a bullet may fall between two standards. It can get even more complicated than that. At one velocity it might be closer to one standard, and at a different velocity closer to a different standard.
So one thing shooters have done for a while is use a banded BC. What this means is they take 5 or 10 or more and generate a table. So that they can have something that better resembles the bullets drag model. This allows you to build a simple "curve" to follow the bullets performance. It was a temporary solution for a long time to a bigger problem.
The real answer though, is to stop using BCs. They come from a time when tables were generated over the course of days. Before we had computers in our pocket and the use of a BC is not needed anymore. Its out dated to be honest. What you should be using is the actual bullets drag model. Instead of comparing one bullet against another to generate a solution (this is what you are doing when you use a BC) you should be just using that bullets actual drag data. This is what a CDM is.
The only reason you should ever look at a BC is if you want to compare one bullet to another. You must take care to make sure the two BCs you compare are generated at the same velocity against the same atmospheric standard (ICAO vs ASM). Not all companies genearate BCs or firing solutions using the same atmospheric standard which can generate an error of 2% easily. Even then, you can get a high bc from a bullet that is not stable through the transonic zone. Another thing that getting a general BC doens't tell you is consistency. You see when bullet lots are tested there is an "SD" for the BC so to speak. Not every bullet performs the same, and some companies are much more consistent than others. Shooters generally shoot with an "averaged" BC which is going to represent the middle ground of that box of bullets. Some bullets will have a much bigger spread of SD and consistency than others. So you should be looking for the most consistent high performance bullets you can get, not necessarily just the highest "BC". But you should also really not be using BCs. This is 2018, and its easy to just use the actual drag model for that bullet.
They're not antiquated, they just use less data. The underlying calculator is exactly the same. Use the best data that you have available, whether it's G1, G7, or a bullet-specific drag function (in increasing order of goodness), and call it a day. G1 and G7 are approximations of the actual drag, but it's not like the actual measured or calculated drag functions are without uncertainty either.
Back to what Doc was saying, unless I am missing something, don’t all Ballistic programs work the same way? Plug in a coefficient and you get an extrapolated curve? I know no other way other than creating a field derived drop chart. Then what do you do if the variables change?
Most ballistics calculators use what is known as a Point Mass model. One of the inputs for a PM solver is the drag coefficient, which is not easy to calculate accurately, and is heavily dependent on the Mach number. Since the CD vs Mach curves for most bullets look more or less the same, solvers use standard curves (G1 and G7), and scale them by BC. The alternative to this is to use a bullet-specific (aka "custom") CD vs Mach curve and not need a BC at all. Either way, it's a point mass calculator - it's just a matter of how you input drag data. Point mass with good data is very good, but it misses (ignores) some yaw-related effects like spin drift.
There are other calculator methods, however:
Pejsa is an approximation of PM designed to limit computational complexity. Modern computers have rendered Pejsa obsolete. People still use it, though.
Modified Point Mass (or 4DOF, or MPM) is a slightly more sophisticated version of Point Mass, and it interprets drag in exactly the same way, but it also includes some yaw-related data. It was developed in order to get results similar to 6DOF but without the extensive computation time. (The computation time is no longer an issue, but MPM still gets some useful results with significantly less data than 6DOF and therefore is still useful).
6DOF is the most sophisticated calculation method, and it requires extensive bullet data, but it is capable of capturing weird effects like extremely high angle fire, dynamic stability, and other odd effects like epicyclic swerve. It can calculate the position and orientation of the bullet at every point in the trajectory. Lapua's phone calculator uses this method, but in a way that doesn't' make a whole lot of sense, to be honest. They way they've done it seems more like a marketing gimmick than a legitimate need.
Good day Doc, please tell me. I have Kestrel 5700 elite. In new bullet database are new bullets and new BCs.
For Lapua .338 you have two 300grs bullets. First has 0.383 and second has 0.393 BC G7. So "who is who?"
For Lapua .264 you have two 139grs bullets. First has 0.280 (Scenar L) and second has 0.290 (common Scenar) BC G7. So Scenar L is more expensive then Scenar and has whorse BC?
Thank you for answer.
For my .308 I use a G1 BC, but for my 6mm Creedmoor I use a G7 BC. You're gonna have to shoot the rifle and see which one gives you the closest data to your real-world results and go off of that. You can speculate which one will be better all day long, but until you gather real-world data it's all just a hypothesis. Most of the time both are fairly close to one another, and once you true up the data the difference in the two is negligible from what I've seen out to 1250 (that's as far as I've shot to date). Just choose one and give it a shot.
I know what you say. But Lapua company make only one 300grs bullet and in the Kestrel database are two these bullets. And 139grs in .264 caliber same bullets have diferent BC. That was my question. I am real shooter and know what i shoot in my AI AX 338 and Tikka T3 6,5x55se. Have measured both. But what is in Kestrel is my question 
I know what you say. But Lapua company make only one 300grs bullet and in the Kestrel database are two these bullets. And 139grs in .264 caliber same bullets have diferent BC. That was my question. I am real shooter and know what i shoot in my AI AX 338 and Tikka T3 6,5x55se. Have measured both. But what is in Kestrel is my question
I guess I should have stated in my response, I was referring to the OP.
This is what spurned my original question. The bullet on the right should be about as G7 as anything out there. The one on the left is a 300 SMK for reference, so you can see that a bullet 103 grains lighter is just about as long. The G7 calculation seemed pretty modest to me, and was barely making it out past a mile transsonic
I know what you say. But Lapua company make only one 300grs bullet and in the Kestrel database are two these bullets. And 139grs in .264 caliber same bullets have diferent BC. That was my question. I am real shooter and know what i shoot in my AI AX 338 and Tikka T3 6,5x55se. Have measured both. But what is in Kestrel is my question
What you are seeing is two different lots of bullets. Left in for a reason.
The issue with 6DOF from a general user standpoint is that it requires inputs that you cannot obtain without a lab. Some of the inputs in a true 6 DOF can only be estimated, and measuring them is near impossible. So you would either need to input that for the user and hide it, or cause chaos by allowing users to try to figure it out. Thats why we use 6DOF in the lab, but use MPM instead of 6DOF for the users. Some 6DOF inputs can only be estimated to +/- 50% accuracy.
Well to put it into perspective. G7 V2 is from around 1956. Some solvers on the market, like ours, have allowed for the use of actual Drag Models instead of G1 or G7 for more than a decade. (The techinical part of this was getting one out that is commercially available which not all are.) AB Connect™ has been up and running for 2 years now, giving users access to a real time library in a ballistics lab. Now we have already field tested PDMs (Personal Drag Models) where a user fires over our system in the field, and we can generate a drag model specific to their rifle and load combination in a matter of minutes. Then use AB Connect™ to push it to the devices/apps in a matter of seconds once the data is compiled.
If that shows you how antiquated some of the old ways of doing it are. G1 and G7 are good for putting on the box (only when the same velocity is used, or its an average BC), but for calculating firing solutions we don't need it anymore. It is the difference between something from the 1950s vs a Drag Model obtained off your own rifle and ammo combination in real time.
If you look at a wide array of bullet diameters and weights there is a perfect correlation between G1 and G7 values, so they both portray identical information. The difference in the ballistic calculations lies in the drag curves which the BC references.
Exactly. the debate over CDMs and BC is pointless. Both are averages and both require truing/tweaking. Indeed "banded BC" are basically the same thing. Don't let the "2018 marketing" fool you. The proof is in the real world, where robust programs are still leading without resorting to CDM...
Agreed again. Let's use some basic common sense. If 6DOF or CDMs are the way to go in "2018" how come they are not the top programs everybody is using? How is that possible? Simple. They are still Point Mass and still suffer from the same illness. IIRC, QTU was the first free program to use Lapua's radar data and didn't set the world on fire. Later Lapua came with its own, again, nothing happened since people did not change to this program. JBM, Strelok, AB were using "CDMs" (Doppler or not) fro years and still don't make the news. Programs like FFS and CB are still the leaders among the ELR crowd proving that the engine makes the difference not just the data (which sould be good to start with). Perhaps AB with the new PDM can make better solutions (we'll see) but they are still averaging the drag curve because there is no other way to deal with it.
The AB Engine is the most winning engine in ELR Shooting, and the most trusted engine in the military. Not marketing just simple facts. Things are going to get even better as we advance through this project: http://soldiersystems.net/2018/03/2...advance-extreme-long-range-sniper-capability/
If you say so. And it's not the most "winning" it's just marketing hype. Period. No need to go over the AB marketing again. We're talking technically and the only thing you can come up with is a sales pitch?
Last edited:
On the other hand, the Doppler radar used by Hornady and AB can't track a a rifle bullet beyond 1200/1300 yards (and this is under ideal conditions). Meaning the transonic zone is hardly captured (velocity loss) for the usual ELR rounds (and many others), which in turn yields a big question on the data obtained for transonic/subsonic predictions.
http://www.infinition.com/site/index.php/us/products-us/10-ghz-en-us/br-29015-en-us#performances
http://www.infinition.com/site/index.php/us/products-us/10-ghz-en-us/br-29015-en-us#performances
Hi,
The Overberg Testing Facility in South Africa can track projectile flight via their stationary and mobile doppler systems from muzzle to splashing in ocean...all with a 3cm/s accuracy. They also have mobile cine theodolites capable of 5-300 frames/s and tracking pedestal with film that is capable of 25-1000 frames/s with 50hz video.
Sincerely,
Theis
The Overberg Testing Facility in South Africa can track projectile flight via their stationary and mobile doppler systems from muzzle to splashing in ocean...all with a 3cm/s accuracy. They also have mobile cine theodolites capable of 5-300 frames/s and tracking pedestal with film that is capable of 25-1000 frames/s with 50hz video.
Sincerely,
Theis
Hi,
@DocUSMCRetired
Can you please explain what true 6 DOF inputs are near impossible to measure and that can only be estimated?
Can you please explain as to where you get the +/- 50% accuracy in regards to estimating some of the 6 DOF inputs? Is that your own "in house" margin or where are you pulling that error margin from?
Sincerely,
Theis
OK. So what BC si your last measured for 300grs Lapua Scenar? Because in KestrelLinkBallistics are named same name of bullets. Which one is right BC?
0.393 or 0.383?
Lets not spread lies now. This bullet stopped tracking when it impacted the target beyond 2000 yards. The Infinition is not the only radar we have as well. We have 3 radar heads. The Infinition is our portable system.
Must be all that "hype".
http://soldiersystems.net/2016/04/26/usasoc-sniper-comp-winners-used-wilcox-raptar/
http://soldiersystems.net/2017/04/1...r-comp-winners-rely-on-wilcox-raptar-s-again/
https://www.ssusa.org/articles/2017/1/9/king-of-2-miles-extreme-long-range-competition/
http://www.bergerbullets.com/bergers-prototype-bullet-crowns-king-2-miles/
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com...ics-shooters-dominate-king-of-2-miles-finals/
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2017/07/king-of-2-miles-elr-match-derek-rodgers-takes-the-crown/
Worlds Longest Shot Challenge Champions of 2017 and 2018 https://www.facebook.com/worldslongestshotchallenge/
http://soldiersystems.net/2015/01/20/shot-show-applied-ballisticswilcox-ind-raptar-s/
https://www.military.com/kitup/2014/02/darpa-develops-mountable-shot.html
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...ckingpoint-darpas-computational-weapon-optic/
https://gizmodo.com/what-it-feels-like-to-shoot-the-military-s-experimental-1700448634
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...ballistic-reticle-system-fire-control-system/
http://soldiersystems.net/2015/07/28/marines-select-kestrel-as-scout-sniper-ballistic-computers/
http://www.kopin.com/investors/news...-at-the-US-Armys-AUSA-Convention/default.aspx
http://www.schmidtundbender.de/phocadownload/neuheiten/NewProducts2014-eur-en-metric-units.pdf
https://www.sigsauer.com/products/bdx/
http://www.recoilweb.com/applied-ba...ct-to-advance-sniper-capabilities-136113.html
http://www.recoilweb.com/the-kings-of-2-miles-129722.html
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2017/07/first-ever-nra-extreme-long-range-one-mile-match/
No worries, its all hype.
http://soldiersystems.net/2016/04/26/usasoc-sniper-comp-winners-used-wilcox-raptar/
http://soldiersystems.net/2017/04/1...r-comp-winners-rely-on-wilcox-raptar-s-again/
https://www.ssusa.org/articles/2017/1/9/king-of-2-miles-extreme-long-range-competition/
http://www.bergerbullets.com/bergers-prototype-bullet-crowns-king-2-miles/
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com...ics-shooters-dominate-king-of-2-miles-finals/
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2017/07/king-of-2-miles-elr-match-derek-rodgers-takes-the-crown/
Worlds Longest Shot Challenge Champions of 2017 and 2018 https://www.facebook.com/worldslongestshotchallenge/
http://soldiersystems.net/2015/01/20/shot-show-applied-ballisticswilcox-ind-raptar-s/
https://www.military.com/kitup/2014/02/darpa-develops-mountable-shot.html
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...ckingpoint-darpas-computational-weapon-optic/
https://gizmodo.com/what-it-feels-like-to-shoot-the-military-s-experimental-1700448634
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...ballistic-reticle-system-fire-control-system/
http://soldiersystems.net/2015/07/28/marines-select-kestrel-as-scout-sniper-ballistic-computers/
http://www.kopin.com/investors/news...-at-the-US-Armys-AUSA-Convention/default.aspx
http://www.schmidtundbender.de/phocadownload/neuheiten/NewProducts2014-eur-en-metric-units.pdf
https://www.sigsauer.com/products/bdx/
http://www.recoilweb.com/applied-ba...ct-to-advance-sniper-capabilities-136113.html
http://www.recoilweb.com/the-kings-of-2-miles-129722.html
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2017/07/first-ever-nra-extreme-long-range-one-mile-match/
No worries, its all hype.
Last edited:
Would be nice to know what other radar heads you actually have...apparently the Infinition is just a toy in your arsenal, speaking of lies...never AB displayed or detailed any info other than the Infinition unit. So, who is spreading out misleading info?
Btw, the data before and at 2000 is basically useless.
Last edited:
Well, some of the links are about systems that have never been actually fielded. Otherwise, I'll appreciate "2018" info...not 4 or 5 years old.
And KO2M (and the other events) doesn't says much about the software. It speaks volumes about the shooters in the AB team. Please no need to go over this non-sense all over again. We know how it works.
Last edited:
To be clear, I don't think using custom drag curves is hype. It's the next logical step up from standard drag functions, and what should be used if available, no matter the calculator. The bottom line is that calculators are as good as they need to be. They are not the weak link in the chain by a long shot. That goes for all of them - even Pejsa is pretty damn good considering the practical limits we face. They are all very good out to ranges where velocity variation and wind become the dominant problems, and not the particular calculation method.
We hit rapidly diminishing returns with any drag model improvements. G1 wasn't (isn't) terrible. G7 is a *little* better. Custom drag curves are a *little* better than G7. I bet I could make a Gdamoncali that would be better than G7, and 95% as good as a custom curve. If you have the best available data, just use it. It doesn't really matter how much better. Why would you use anything but the best information? I'm not sure why we never see them this way, but if you plot a properly scaled G1, G7 and CDM on the same chart and look at the lines in the mach numbers of interest, they're practically on top of each other, diverging only at extreme range - well into territory where slight wind misreads have massive consequences.
I don't even think 6DOF is hype. It's just misapplied by Lapua (probably as a way to demonstrate their technical expertise, but I'm just speculating). It's meant to be an engineering tool, not a phone app. Check out what it predicts for a .338 lapua mag in terms of dynamic instability. It's just wildly wrong. No user of a phone is in a position to interpret that because they hide all the data, and most users wouldn't be able to make sense of it if they didn't. So yeah, as a phone ap with blind data, it's basically a gimmick. That's not to say they don't have the expertise to release a proper 6DOF desktop app if they chose to do so. (I'm not holding my breath, but I have no doubts as to their capability).
Calculator technology is as good as it's going to get as far as accuracy goes. There isn't much left to squeeze out. The next frontier is making that information usable by the shooter in real time, which is already starting to happen as well with smart scopes. It's a great time to be shooting - this is stuff people have dreamed about for centuries, and we're seeing it created with front row seats.
We hit rapidly diminishing returns with any drag model improvements. G1 wasn't (isn't) terrible. G7 is a *little* better. Custom drag curves are a *little* better than G7. I bet I could make a Gdamoncali that would be better than G7, and 95% as good as a custom curve. If you have the best available data, just use it. It doesn't really matter how much better. Why would you use anything but the best information? I'm not sure why we never see them this way, but if you plot a properly scaled G1, G7 and CDM on the same chart and look at the lines in the mach numbers of interest, they're practically on top of each other, diverging only at extreme range - well into territory where slight wind misreads have massive consequences.
I don't even think 6DOF is hype. It's just misapplied by Lapua (probably as a way to demonstrate their technical expertise, but I'm just speculating). It's meant to be an engineering tool, not a phone app. Check out what it predicts for a .338 lapua mag in terms of dynamic instability. It's just wildly wrong. No user of a phone is in a position to interpret that because they hide all the data, and most users wouldn't be able to make sense of it if they didn't. So yeah, as a phone ap with blind data, it's basically a gimmick. That's not to say they don't have the expertise to release a proper 6DOF desktop app if they chose to do so. (I'm not holding my breath, but I have no doubts as to their capability).
Calculator technology is as good as it's going to get as far as accuracy goes. There isn't much left to squeeze out. The next frontier is making that information usable by the shooter in real time, which is already starting to happen as well with smart scopes. It's a great time to be shooting - this is stuff people have dreamed about for centuries, and we're seeing it created with front row seats.
Cannot give away all of our labs secrets, not every project is public. Very few actually are. But the infinition highly valuable piece of equipment especially due to its portability. Users will see just how valuable as we advance peoples ideas of ballistic solvers. Take 2 or 3 of the many systems we have and couple them together and we can get high resolution data at very long range. The information at 2000 yards is far from useless. But I am more excited about some of the upcomming releases of information we have in store.
Actually, we have something new on the way. I am not sure when we will release it, but it is pretty cool. It is also another step forward for ballistics engines. Not to mention some new technology that is being fielded. Hopefully we can bring it to the public domain in the not so far future.
