First and foremost this is a statement on the scientific differences of the two models. In no way is this a negative statement on Horus or the creators of Atrag. This statement isn't from Kestrel.
As mentioned in previous posts by Frank, generally any well written solver should produce an accurate solution as long as the correct inputs are given.
Obviously there are uncertainties in long range shooting, with wind being the greatest one. Learning to accurately assess wind speed and direction can improve hit % dramatically. Other uncertainties such as MV deviation, range ect will also effect your shooting. The best way to combat this is to use accurate inputs and always improve your fundamentals in shooting, wind calls and RE.
From AB team;
The AB solver coupled with the Litz-measured drag curves provides accurate solutions to ELR without the typical "tweaking" that has been previously necessary to get rounds on target. Several of these features are not specifically mentioned in press releases but in working with the AB team, I have come to learn that there are several advanced features. One of them includes air density compensation for high angle shooting. At extreme angles, this can become a real issue. Additionally, when dealing with high crosswinds, aerodynamic jump also causes the elevation to change as well. All of these items are included within the AB solver but may be be explicitly called out.
As a result, by using the Litz-measured drag curves and when using the AB Kestrel and inputting accurate sensor and wind data, the elevation is accurate to extreme long range. Even though most solvers ignore such things, at ELR each of them adds up to a significant enough influence that you are likely to be off target. When engaging steel or on a range, this may not matter, but in a military scenario, this could be very different. Since there is no distinction on the AB units for the military and the civilian versions, the AB device has all of the capability that the military is using as well. Thus, increasing the standoff range of the currently deployed 0.308" weapons is a must and the AB solver allows that to happen.
While many users may not be aware of the internal workings of the ballistics solvers, there are other important distinctions. One such item is the usage of truing the ballistic coefficient. The ATRAG units handle this by modifying the ballistic coefficient (usually by lowering it at longer ranges) as a function of range. However, this leads to a modified time of flight and thus in turn, a wind deflection that is greater than expected. With the usage of the DSF calibration that the AB solver uses, the wind deflection is unchanged by the DSF modification. I know that the AB team has conducted many experiments and data collections that show that this is the better way to go and provides more accurate wind correction at long range as well.
As mentioned in previous posts by Frank, generally any well written solver should produce an accurate solution as long as the correct inputs are given.
Obviously there are uncertainties in long range shooting, with wind being the greatest one. Learning to accurately assess wind speed and direction can improve hit % dramatically. Other uncertainties such as MV deviation, range ect will also effect your shooting. The best way to combat this is to use accurate inputs and always improve your fundamentals in shooting, wind calls and RE.
From AB team;
The AB solver coupled with the Litz-measured drag curves provides accurate solutions to ELR without the typical "tweaking" that has been previously necessary to get rounds on target. Several of these features are not specifically mentioned in press releases but in working with the AB team, I have come to learn that there are several advanced features. One of them includes air density compensation for high angle shooting. At extreme angles, this can become a real issue. Additionally, when dealing with high crosswinds, aerodynamic jump also causes the elevation to change as well. All of these items are included within the AB solver but may be be explicitly called out.
As a result, by using the Litz-measured drag curves and when using the AB Kestrel and inputting accurate sensor and wind data, the elevation is accurate to extreme long range. Even though most solvers ignore such things, at ELR each of them adds up to a significant enough influence that you are likely to be off target. When engaging steel or on a range, this may not matter, but in a military scenario, this could be very different. Since there is no distinction on the AB units for the military and the civilian versions, the AB device has all of the capability that the military is using as well. Thus, increasing the standoff range of the currently deployed 0.308" weapons is a must and the AB solver allows that to happen.
While many users may not be aware of the internal workings of the ballistics solvers, there are other important distinctions. One such item is the usage of truing the ballistic coefficient. The ATRAG units handle this by modifying the ballistic coefficient (usually by lowering it at longer ranges) as a function of range. However, this leads to a modified time of flight and thus in turn, a wind deflection that is greater than expected. With the usage of the DSF calibration that the AB solver uses, the wind deflection is unchanged by the DSF modification. I know that the AB team has conducted many experiments and data collections that show that this is the better way to go and provides more accurate wind correction at long range as well.
Last edited:
