TRASOL vs Strelok Pro

[THEIS]

Hi,

Long story made short....That "Theme" is completely incorrect.

Read some about Blaine of Field Firing Solutions and look how long his ballistic engine has been doing what it does.
Read some about Gus of Patagonia Ballistics and look how long his ballistic engine has been doing what it does.
Research on the Advanced Ballistic Computer (ABC) from back in the original Cheytac & Associates days...Was built completely from Yuma radar data and caused all sorts of debates on multiple wind zones and such.

Also..here is the linked version of the detailed post made by LL. You can see some actual Doppler comparison charts showing difference between CB and Point Mass ballistic engines (AB, JBM, Strelok, etc)
http://www.patagoniaballistics.com/balengine.html

Here you can see some screenshots of CB Mobile version:
http://www.patagoniaballistics.com/scmobile.html

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[LastShot300]

Let me rant for a second. I said I can’t speak for other solvers. But let’s ignore that and talk about some deception.

I’ve been reading AB books lately and there’s a prevailing these amongst two of the books I’ve completed so far: As of this writing or to my knowledge, AB’s engine is the only software accounting for this. Or AB engine is the only software back by a ballistician. Forget the context. Every second or third chapter, the theme is we’re the only ones accounting for this. From my perspective, to my knowledge, it all sounded legit.

Looking back, the books while providing good information, was more so marketing for AB & Berger. I’m kind of pissed about it.


And how the hell is it 3DOF when they spend countless chapters discussing the effects of 6DOF. Surely there’s a mistake.

I haven't read that book, but if 6DOF is talked about that does not mean that the software is a fully fledged 6DOF. It's a 3DOF solver and that is a fact. Just do your numbers and compare it with other programs like JBM, Shooter, etc. and draw your own conclusions. I can post an example if you wish so though I don't see the need for it. On the marketing for AB and Berger I concur with you.

 

[Lowlight]

The Engine behind most 3DOF is McCoy formulas from the 1950s, AB did not write it, just re-interpreted it.

The Engine behind 4DOF is an updated version written in 1966 after McCoy Died to include things like yaw.

The Engine behind Field Firing Solutions was updated and written by Arthur Pesja in the 1980s, he has since died. Pesja made his software so it is NOT limited by the G Curve in other words, it does not care G1 or G7, both work equally the same. Unlike the McCoy software used which is G Dependent and why AB Pushes G7 because their software is limited by the curve used.

The First Commercial Software was written by Gerald Perry (Ballistician) ExBal he has since died, his software was also the original NF Software

TRASOL and ColdBore 1.0 are written by Gus from Patagonia, has Pesja DNA but is an MPM (Modified Point Mass) or 4DOF engine that goes a bit farther than most other software in that it understands where the bullet was and where it is going vs Point Mass which is just an empty point in space. Like FFS and Pesja, ColdBore and TRASOL are not G Dependent, which means both G1 and G7 will give you a valid solution at any given distance. One is not better than the other both work.

Marketing is a powerful tool with very few people left alive to argue the points made, it's easy to fill the void with marketing statements.

Lapua has what they call 6DOF software, but it does not work. It does have Doppler data feeding it but there is something wrong with it overall and it can't really handle atmospheric changes correctly. I cannot get it to line up Lapua Bullets and Ammo to work from the data off my range because I am 5000ft above sea level. None of their people have gotten my data to work in their solver.

We have access to CDM data, which is what we should be using. This is how Hornady can use Axial Form Factors vs BCs, they use Doppler data, which is why their library is small. They only use what they tested. The benefit of Hornady is they Doppler their data to 1500m and then fix the numbers back to 800 yards, where most BCs are 300-yard measurements.

Every software has embellishments and what I call Author Flourishes under the hood. This is part UI, this is part execution and ways to fix the limitations of 3DOF software which is actually the weakest of them all.

Most Ballisticians will tell you 3DOF is "Good Enough" for what we do, it's really not true and others will tell you that fixing those limitations is a lot of work. This is why it has not been fixed, we combine Good Enough with Extra Works, and we have where we are today.

The 6DOF they speak about is more an academic ballistic software they use to model this stuff. There are different versions but mainly it's a modeling tool vs a practical one. Its there to confirm things for them that 3DOF and 4DOF cannot look at. They take that data and write Flat Rate Values to fill in the missing pieces and then use stuff like TOF, (time of flight) to adjust the amount used. Like SD, it's a Flat rate value and not something actually calculated. They just know at 1 Second time of flight we want to move SD over 1" which at distance is multiplied, so a cartridge with a 1-second TOF at 1000 yards that is 10" of SD. They figure it can't hurt and should help so why not. Cause 3DOF cannot see SD on its own, doesn't exist.

There is also AIMEE from Hazelton who uses MPM data. He claims to have "fixed" many of the errors and limitations of McCoy, and 4DOF. He is a NASA guy and is very smart, just hard to work with. He is very ITAR adverse claiming all this ITAR controlled and has settled into feeding the military only as civilians don't need this stuff, according to him anyway. Since he comes from Ballistics Missiles everything there is ITAR controlled so he takes the same approach with software. He does not see the difference between a bullet and a missile.

ColdBore has a metric ton of code compared, something 18,000 lines of code vs 250 lines in 3DOF. Remember both 3DOF and 4DOF are freeware software from the military dating back in time. This stuff will run in MS Excel however the Apps are used to fix the UI. The User Interface is the written part.

Anyone can have a Ballistic App, the software to run it free. you just have to hire someone to package it into an App.

In order of things you had

ExBal
ABC - CheyTac
LoadBase - Original ColdBore
Field Firing Soliutions
Horus ATRAG

And then the rest with the Apps, most of the early software ran on Windows only, the other stuff arrived with the smartphone.

 

[THEIS]

Hi,

O man I have not heard "Exbal" in a freaking long time!!
For those that might not have know about it, here is some brief information on it just FWIW and historical reference.
https://www.scribd.com/document/329541381/Exbal-for-Dummies

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[PTPATAW]

This is interesting and I’m getting school. I don’t mind it.

Only thing I’m curious about is how do you know which Drag Coefficient to use for high BC bullets? Is that something you experiment with. For context I’m referring to high BC bullets such as a 150gr 6.5mm SMK. I’m assuming you’d use something close to 0.9

 

[Lowlight]

You do not change the DC, leave it .500

That is a fine tune adjustment and not one to default too

FFS and CB handle it slightly differently, one is DC the other is DK, but they are very specific in their use.

If you true the BC at 800 for your system and do a minor tweak the MV closer in, after the BC adjustment you are fine.

 

[PTPATAW]

You do not change the DC, leave it .500

That is a fine tune adjustment and not one to default too

FFS and CB handle it slightly differently, one is DC the other is DK, but they are very specific in their use.

If you true the BC at 800 for your system and do a minor tweak the MV closer in, after the BC adjustment you are fine.

I read all the information posted. I’m curious why something independent of BC and more concerned about DC, would have you tweaking the BC instead of DC

 

[Lowlight]

I dont understand your question, the DC only moves in small doses, it does not go to .9, you move it +/- small amounts

Here is a video from Lex Talus on the DK, it's similar to the DC

Video Link

The BC is controlled by a couple of factors including velocity. The number from the manufacturer is a starting point as every rifle is different. Barrel, Velocity, etc have a bearing so you want to change the BC first.

Watch the video it helps explain it at least for FFS

 

[PTPATAW]

I dont understand your question, the DC only moves in small doses, it does not go to .9, you move it +/- small amounts

Here is a video from Lex Talus on the DK, it's similar to the DC

Video Link

The BC is controlled by a couple of factors including velocity. The number from the manufacturer is a starting point as every rifle is different. Barrel, Velocity, etc have a bearing so you want to change the BC first.

Watch the video it helps explain it at least for FFS

The way I read these is that the DC is what ultimately is adjusted after using the BC as a baseline. So that’s where I got the DC 0.9 from. Watching the video now.
From Patagonia:

“The model is an analytic, closed-form solution that doesn’t use tables generated for standard-shaped projectiles, a fact of paramount importance, since while it does not rely on the G1/G7 drag model used in most of the available programs, (some following the Mayeveski-Ingalls tables), the present method can use a readily available, G1/G7 ballistic coefficient as published, incorporating a custom drag function in order to model the specific projectile.”

“Typically, this slope factor goes, in terms of bullet shape, from 0.1 ( flat-nose ) to 0.9 ( very-low-drag ), and a default value of 0.5 can be used for most modern spitzer-type bullets with confidence, and if not possible to obtain it from actual measurements, its value can be determined from bullet's shape”

 

[Lowlight]

Don't change it, just ignore it

Watch the video, .5 is right for most modern bullets, you are not shooting the other shapes

 

[Lowlight]

Don't over think it,

If you look in the CB Library there is a lot of hunting ammo, if you wanted to dope your 416 Rigby to shoot an animal at 500 yards, then you change it to match that big round bullet.

Gus is hunter down there in Argentina, so it's more for a variety of stuff, vs what we shoot match bullet wise. Consider the context of what is being said, and then understand it's meant for a wide variety of shooters, from a guy shooting a musket ball to the one shooting a 6.5CM.

 

[LastShot300]

The Engine behind most 3DOF is McCoy formulas from the 1950s, AB did not write it, just re-interpreted it.

The Engine behind 4DOF is an updated version written in 1966 after McCoy Died to include things like yaw.

The Engine behind Field Firing Solutions was updated and written by Arthur Pesja in the 1980s, he has since died. Pesja made his software so it is NOT limited by the G Curve in other words, it does not care G1 or G7, both work equally the same. Unlike the McCoy software used which is G Dependent and why AB Pushes G7 because their software is limited by the curve used.

The First Commercial Software was written by Gerald Perry (Ballistician) ExBal he has since died, his software was also the original NF Software

TRASOL and ColdBore 1.0 are written by Gus from Patagonia, has Pesja DNA but is an MPM (Modified Point Mass) or 4DOF engine that goes a bit farther than most other software in that it understands where the bullet was and where it is going vs Point Mass which is just an empty point in space. Like FFS and Pesja, ColdBore and TRASOL are not G Dependent, which means both G1 and G7 will give you a valid solution at any given distance. One is not better than the other both work.

Marketing is a powerful tool with very few people left alive to argue the points made, it's easy to fill the void with marketing statements.

Lapua has what they call 6DOF software, but it does not work. It does have Doppler data feeding it but there is something wrong with it overall and it can't really handle atmospheric changes correctly. I cannot get it to line up Lapua Bullets and Ammo to work from the data off my range because I am 5000ft above sea level. None of their people have gotten my data to work in their solver.

We have access to CDM data, which is what we should be using. This is how Hornady can use Axial Form Factors vs BCs, they use Doppler data, which is why their library is small. They only use what they tested. The benefit of Hornady is they Doppler their data to 1500m and then fix the numbers back to 800 yards, where most BCs are 300-yard measurements.

Every software has embellishments and what I call Author Flourishes under the hood. This is part UI, this is part execution and ways to fix the limitations of 3DOF software which is actually the weakest of them all.

Most Ballisticians will tell you 3DOF is "Good Enough" for what we do, it's really not true and others will tell you that fixing those limitations is a lot of work. This is why it has not been fixed, we combine Good Enough with Extra Works, and we have where we are today.

The 6DOF they speak about is more an academic ballistic software they use to model this stuff. There are different versions but mainly it's a modeling tool vs a practical one. Its there to confirm things for them that 3DOF and 4DOF cannot look at. They take that data and write Flat Rate Values to fill in the missing pieces and then use stuff like TOF, (time of flight) to adjust the amount used. Like SD, it's a Flat rate value and not something actually calculated. They just know at 1 Second time of flight we want to move SD over 1" which at distance is multiplied, so a cartridge with a 1-second TOF at 1000 yards that is 10" of SD. They figure it can't hurt and should help so why not. Cause 3DOF cannot see SD on its own, doesn't exist.

There is also AIMEE from Hazelton who uses MPM data. He claims to have "fixed" many of the errors and limitations of McCoy, and 4DOF. He is a NASA guy and is very smart, just hard to work with. He is very ITAR adverse claiming all this ITAR controlled and has settled into feeding the military only as civilians don't need this stuff, according to him anyway. Since he comes from Ballistics Missiles everything there is ITAR controlled so he takes the same approach with software. He does not see the difference between a bullet and a missile.

ColdBore has a metric ton of code compared, something 18,000 lines of code vs 250 lines in 3DOF. Remember both 3DOF and 4DOF are freeware software from the military dating back in time. This stuff will run in MS Excel however the Apps are used to fix the UI. The User Interface is the written part.

Anyone can have a Ballistic App, the software to run it free. you just have to hire someone to package it into an App.

In order of things you had

ExBal
ABC - CheyTac
LoadBase - Original ColdBore
Field Firing Soliutions
Horus ATRAG

And then the rest with the Apps, most of the early software ran on Windows only, the other stuff arrived with the smartphone.

Outstanding. Left me speechless once again. Thanks for sharing your super valuable insight and knowledge with us.

 

[LastShot300]

Hi,

Long story made short....That "Theme" is completely incorrect.

Read some about Blaine of Field Firing Solutions and look how long his ballistic engine has been doing what it does.
Read some about Gus of Patagonia Ballistics and look how long his ballistic engine has been doing what it does.
Research on the Advanced Ballistic Computer (ABC) from back in the original Cheytac & Associates days...Was built completely from Yuma radar data and caused all sorts of debates on multiple wind zones and such.

Also..here is the linked version of the detailed post made by LL. You can see some actual Doppler comparison charts showing difference between CB and Point Mass ballistic engines (AB, JBM, Strelok, etc)
http://www.patagoniaballistics.com/balengine.html

Here you can see some screenshots of CB Mobile version:
http://www.patagoniaballistics.com/scmobile.html

Sincerely,
Theis

Very well put sir!

 

[THEIS]

Hi,

@NomadEmbers
Think of it this way and it may make it easier to understand.

DC:
0 is for musket
1 is for the perfect non-drag induced projectile (Does not exit)
.5 is just about right for our modern "match" projectiles. (Some tweaking can be made for some of the new monolithics but we getting into splitting hairs for it to be noticed)

BC:
Is the most ill advised number in the ammunition spectrum.
Manufacturers inflate it for a variety of reasons.
It is NOT a constant number and will change from one velocity to another, from one rifle to another, from one barrel to another, from one environment to another, etc etc

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[LastShot300]

Hi,

O man I have not heard "Exbal" in a freaking long time!!
For those that might not have know about it, here is some brief information on it just FWIW and historical reference.
https://www.scribd.com/document/329541381/Exbal-for-Dummies

Sincerely,
Theis

Never touched the original the one I got was marketed under the NF label thanks for sharing it for old timers' sake.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

To calculate BC you need Sectional Density (combining weight and caliber), Velocity, and Coefficient of form (shape). When you change BC you are in effect changing ALL of these aspects because you are changing the final number. When you change DC, you are only changing the shape ever so slightly.

 

[Bender]

I’m guessing TRASOL is headed my way for my anniversary this weekend........

 

[one shot ST]

Nice topic

 

[one shot ST]

I’m using FFS, TRASOL, STRELOKpro and in the past CB1, CB1 and FFS are very close, two good engines, I don’t like CB1 interface but this is another story, the engine is good.
using same data DA 0 meters, same speed, G7 BC for TRASOL and Strelokpro .415 ( AB book CE MTH L 350 ) and 0.871 for FFS, I’ve about same Solutions, 0.871 was calculated using labradar and shotmarker downrange, I had very good results till 2200 meters ( max distance for me in my range ) TRASOL and FFS same Solutions Strelok very close, but difficult to say if 25 MIL is better than 25.3 ( Strelok Solution ) at 2200 meters on hilly terrain is very easy to be on target with the predictive Solution or may be .5 up/.5dw..
So I’m fine with these software, FFS is my primary but I like also the others one.

 

[Baron23]

Very interesting and informative discussion.

I wonder if @lowlight and some of the other experts here would have a updated comparative view of these applications and their strengths/weaknesses since this thread was started in 2018.

 

[Long Range 338]

Very interesting and informative discussion.

I wonder if @lowlight and some of the other experts here would have a updated comparative view of these applications and their strengths/weaknesses since this thread was started in 2018.

These apps haven't changed since 2018, what is there to report?

 

[one shot ST]

As you can see in the pictures the predictions are very close, FFS need a nomad or similar device, same thing for CB1, so hardware very expensive, same thing for SD, FFS as a good interface for me, better than CB1, results are pretty the same.
with FFS you can do range card, export point in google Earth or ozi Explorer for navigation pourposes, you need a laser from Vectronix, you have loophole tools for accurate solution.
finally you can customize a set of table for ranging, Wind and Ballistic solver, but I say again all is very expensive.

with TRASOL and Strelokpro you can have same thing about Ballistic solver, they are not expensive, with the two you can Connect a terrapin x and with Strelok also the kestrel, but is not a must, condition change gradually during a day so is not important to have a device like a kestrel continuosly connected, you can input data also using an analogic tool, no battery and easy to use, about loophole info you can do the same also with a normal software.

I talk about me, I‘ve FFS with Vector 21, and kestrel and I use also Strelokpro and Trasol, I can do some things sometimes in a faster way.
from each one you can have Ballistic table on paper for Field use.

finally if you need a rugged device you can find a lot of them on the web, TRASOL, and StrelokPro are very close to FFS, and you save a lot of money..
I’m well with all of them, I did a lot of work with Blaine Field, in Italy FFS is used by a lot of military units, but starts to became an older platform.

 

[Lowlight]

The difference is 3 DOF vs 4DOF

point mass vs modified point mass,

which is basically pitch and yaw, but the CB / TRASOL engine is different, most of the apps, are straight code with a UI. Gus and the Coldbore engine is not straight code.

I don’t know exact numbers, but in the past talking to Gus most programs /Apps have about 250 lines of code for the engine. CB uses like 18,000 because unlike the other apps there is actually a bullet. In point mass there is no bullet. It’s just a point in space with no understanding of where it stands in that space, Coldbore has a bullet that knows where it came from and where it is going.

you really have to read Pejsa to understand the formulas. He explains the fixes he includes, Lyman talks about it too with Aimee as its 4 DOF MPM.

there is a good enough mindset here, programmers are lazy, and it’s all UI with us, like the comment from David how the CB UI has hurt it elven though it’s a better app.

 

[LastShot300]

The difference is 3 DOF vs 4DOF

point mass vs modified point mass,

which is basically pitch and yaw, but the CB / TRASOL engine is different, most of the apps, are straight code with a UI. Gus and the Coldbore engine is not straight code.

I don’t know exact numbers, but in the past talking to Gus most programs /Apps have about 250 lines of code for the engine. CB uses like 18,000 because unlike the other apps there is actually a bullet. In point mass there is no bullet. It’s just a point in space with no understanding of where it stands in that space, Coldbore has a bullet that knows where it came from and where it is going.

you really have to read Pejsa to understand the formulas. He explains the fixes he includes, Lyman talks about it too with Aimee as its 4 DOF MPM.

there is a good enough mindset here, programmers are lazy, and it’s all UI with us, like the comment from David how the CB UI has hurt it elven though it’s a better app.

As a long time user of CB1 I have to say that I agree with your assessment. CB engine is so different from the usual Point Mass that the investment is worth every penny. UIs are a very personal thing, I never had any trouble running CB and to be honest, never got used to FFS and Strelok. On the other hand, Strelok is far from being a solid solver as CB, sometimes it may be close, but most of the time when doing ELR work it's not. Most especially in and beyond transonic, that' where one can really see CB shining out.

 

[Baron23]

These apps haven't changed since 2018, what is there to report?

Well, that would be one thing, wouldn’t it ?

 

[Long Range 338]

Well as the apps add interfacing with rangefinders and weather meters that would be something. But as far as the ballistic computing side the apps have not changed in the way the trajectories are calculated. I wasn't trying to be snarky I was just stating there wouldn't be anything to report in the way the apps work and their calculations. Of course there are minor tweaks to keep the apps running on the different platforms, error fixes, etc.

The thread is not specifically about other apps but in the past few months the Lapua 6DOF actually appears to be working, Hornady's 4DOF is now more integrated into other devices, and Applied Ballistics is performing better than it has in the past (all of this in my own non scientific, anecdotal experience only).

 

[ptosis]

They're all pretty much comparable.

With the computing power available today in even a low-end smartphone, practical difference is mostly defined by personal preferences for the interface, and connection options (weather meters, rangefinders) which may or may not be important.

If you are shooting mostly in supersonic, it stops there.

For transonic and beyond –

If you are shooting Lapua, make sure you are using their Cd data (which many solvers integrate "out of the box" – JBM, AB and StrelokPro among others), as Doppler-measured data is the most accurate curve you can have for a given bullet.

For the same reason, if you are shooting Hornady, use their calculator (they are not releasing their Cd data for other solvers, and I never got around to reverse-engineer a few of them).

For all other bullets, make sure you are using a properly defined G7 BC value, which is way more accurate than G1, or Trasol (or whatever its Windoze-based father is called), which is also quite G7-ish, and may (or may not) fit some projectiles better than G7.

Extra-DOFs (6DOF, 4DOF, MPM, etc.) may make a difference in 2 points:
1. More accurate estimation of spin drift
2. An estimation of bullet stability at different ranges (which is, strictly speaking, not a feature for the shooting range, but rather for homework). For reliable results, this pt.2 requires a thorough lab study of a specific projectile; general purpose stuff must be considered as indicative at best.
In practical terms, extra-DOFs add nothing else. You decide if you need it.

Trasol and Hornady have an intelligent way of tuning of drag curves for specific rifles. This said, we are talking about a couple of clicks deep in transonic (for the unlikely case when the shooter is able to reliably see the difference at these distances). BTW, accurate bookkeeping does the job just as well.

 

[LastShot300]

Extra-DOFs (6DOF, 4DOF, MPM, etc.) may make a difference in 2 points:
1. More accurate estimation of spin drift
2. An estimation of bullet stability at different ranges (which is, strictly speaking, not a feature for the shooting range, but rather for homework). For reliable results, this pt.2 requires a thorough lab study of a specific projectile; general purpose stuff must be considered as indicative at best.
In practical terms, extra-DOFs add nothing else. You decide if you need it.

Trasol and Hornady have an intelligent way of tuning of drag curves for specific rifles. This said, we are talking about a couple of clicks deep in transonic (for the unlikely case when the shooter is able to reliably see the difference at these distances). BTW, accurate bookkeeping does the job just as well.

Well, if you are into real ELR it's not a "couple of clicks" that would matter...it's way more than that and even with a Cd "curve" most apps would fail, because Cd curves are not much better than a well established BC. I'm talking from my real world experience not from the ballistics side of things. And most ELR guys would tell you the same. It's the engine that matters the most. I'm looking forward to try Genesis, with it's engine developed by Patagonia. Sure, extra DOFs means nothing but sells well.

 

[ptosis]

Well, if you are into real ELR it's not a "couple of clicks" that would matter...it's way more than that and even with a Cd "curve" most apps would fail, because Cd curves are not much better than a well established BC. I'm talking from my real world experience not from the ballistics side of things. And most ELR guys would tell you the same. It's the engine that matters the most. I'm looking forward to try Genesis, with it's engine developed by Patagonia. Sure, extra DOFs means nothing but sells well.

I remember we already had this conversation once or twice, so I am writing mostly for other people reading this thread.

"It's the engine that matters the most" is a very wrong statement. The engine probably matters the least. It took me a couple of hours to reverse-engineer Trasol's internal model, and hack together a 3DOF prototype which reproduces Trasol's results to a rounding error close all the way down to 0.8 Mach.

"Cd curves are not much better than a well established BC" is another very wrong statement. Below the supersonic range, real bullets behave very differently. In my Trasol review example, in the subsonic range, the G7 model underestimates the drag of a Lapua LockBase projectile, and overestimates the drag of a Lapua Scenar projectile. There may be drag profiles / models fitting better one bullet or the other, but there is no, and cannot be, a drag profile matching both bullets behaviour at the same time. L: Logic.

A drag profile perfectly fitting one given projectile is obtained by Doppler radar measurements, and that's what Lapua and Hornady do – they provide specific drag models for every bullet they produce.

This said, the Trasol model (which our friend LastShot is such a fan of) is indeed an excellent general-purpose model for modern long range small arms projectiles, at least on par with G7, and in some cases – better (and in some other cases – not).

Along with G7, it is my second choice after Doppler-measured curves, when the latter are not available. I wish the Trasol team did not fail so miserably with their Android development; Trasol interface is pretty good, it could have been my #1 app for supersonic sessions.

 

[THEIS]

there is a good enough mindset here, programmers are lazy, and it’s all UI with us,

Hi,

That is so painfully honest that I do not know whether to laugh or cry, lol.

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[Deleted member 113831]

18,000 lines of code is me (the bullet), in a $100,000 self driving car, getting to the grocery store 1,200 yards away following a precisely calculated and executed path.

250 lines of code is me (the bullet), in a 1990 Toyota Tercel, making a few small corrections all along the way....and still getting to the store 1,200 yards away.

 

[LastShot300]

I remember we already had this conversation once or twice, so I am writing mostly for other people reading this thread.

"It's the engine that matters the most" is a very wrong statement. The engine probably matters the least. It took me a couple of hours to reverse-engineer Trasol's internal model, and hack together a 3DOF prototype which reproduces Trasol's results to a rounding error close all the way down to 0.8 Mach.

"Cd curves are not much better than a well established BC" is another very wrong statement. Below the supersonic range, real bullets behave very differently. In my Trasol review example, in the subsonic range, the G7 model underestimates the drag of a Lapua LockBase projectile, and overestimates the drag of a Lapua Scenar projectile. There may be drag profiles / models fitting better one bullet or the other, but there is no, and cannot be, a drag profile matching both bullets behaviour at the same time. L: Logic.

A drag profile perfectly fitting one given projectile is obtained by Doppler radar measurements, and that's what Lapua and Hornady do – they provide specific drag models for every bullet they produce.

This said, the Trasol model (which our friend LastShot is such a fan of) is indeed an excellent general-purpose model for modern long range small arms projectiles, at least on par with G7, and in some cases – better (and in some other cases – not).

Along with G7, it is my second choice after Doppler-measured curves, when the latter are not available. I wish the Trasol team did not fail so miserably with their Android development; Trasol interface is pretty good, it could have been my #1 app for supersonic sessions.

Plotting a curve fit on Excel is something everyone can do and it's far away from being "reverse engineering" that's a funny and a wrong idea of how things actually work. If you were right, then there would not be any need for developing the science of ballistics and the last 100 years were, according to your statement a waste of time.

Wrong again, the engine is the most important piece, because with similar data you get right or wrong predictions running different engines, so being the data the common factor, all the difference is in the engine and it does not take a PhD degree to grasp such a simple fact. Regarding Cd curves, stepped BCs which are just a breakdown of a Cd curve will do exactly the same if your engine is not smart enough to predict the downrange Cd shift in the same way as Patagonia does.

Dopple radar can't follow small arms projectiles beyond 1000 or 1200 yards (give or take depending on bullet size) and it's not me saying this, it's the radar manufacturers specs. So, in the transonic realm there is almost no data available, at least for most calibers. It only took me a visit to their websites to understand how this works and where the detection bondaries are. Bottom line, after 1000/1200 all you got is noise, not a workable Cd curve.

Yes, of course there are differences between bullets, barrels, etc. The beauty of Patagonia's engine is twofold, first it predicts very well in the transonic region and second it allows the user to adjust the Cd curve until a match is got. Point Mass can't do that, a pure and simple truth.

Like I said, I speak from real world experince and IIRC you are not a LR and much less a ELR shooter, so what your "analysis" can tell you must be taken with a grain of salt. If Cd curves are the "best" solution then ELR would be a lot more easier than it actually is and hits should happen all day long, unfortunately that's not the case. About a month ago, the ELR World Record was achieved using Coldbore in just two shots. Again, it's not me "claiming" this, it is the shooter who publicly said that he tried all apps and the best one around was Patagonia's. I'm not a "fan" I prefer to consider myself a regular guy who happened to test all possible apps in the real world out there just to find what works and what does not.

Armchair ballistics is a great way to spend time on a rainy day, unfortunately for those of us who spend more time on the range, it does not work the same.

 

[LastShot300]

18,000 lines of code is me (the bullet), in a $100,000 self driving car, getting to the grocery store 1,200 yards away following a precisely calculated and executed path.

250 lines of code is me (the bullet), in a 1990 Toyota Tercel, making a few small corrections all along the way....and still getting to the store 1,200 yards away.

I have to agree that when inside 1000 or 1200 yards all good engines will work well, the real issue is when you get into transonic and that's where you see why a 100K car is not the same as 1990 Toyo. Same happens on the race track.

 

[LastShot300]

Hi,

That is so painfully honest that I do not know whether to laugh or cry, lol.

Sincerely,
Theis

Lazy? perhaps they are, but expensive

 

[ptosis]

Plotting a curve fit on Excel is something everyone can do and it's far away from being "reverse engineering" that's a funny and a wrong idea of how things actually work. If you were right, then there would not be any need for developing the science of ballistics and the last 100 years were, according to your statement a waste of time.

Wrong again, the engine is the most important piece, because with similar data you get right or wrong predictions running different engines, so being the data the common factor, all the difference is in the engine and it does not take a PhD degree to grasp such a simple fact. Regarding Cd curves, stepped BCs which are just a breakdown of a Cd curve will do exactly the same if your engine is not smart enough to predict the downrange Cd shift in the same way as Patagonia does.

Dopple radar can't follow small arms projectiles beyond 1000 or 1200 yards (give or take depending on bullet size) and it's not me saying this, it's the radar manufacturers specs. So, in the transonic realm there is almost no data available, at least for most calibers. It only took me a visit to their websites to understand how this works and where the detection bondaries are. Bottom line, after 1000/1200 all you got is noise, not a workable Cd curve.

Yes, of course there are differences between bullets, barrels, etc. The beauty of Patagonia's engine is twofold, first it predicts very well in the transonic region and second it allows the user to adjust the Cd curve until a match is got. Point Mass can't do that, a pure and simple truth.

Like I said, I speak from real world experince and IIRC you are not a LR and much less a ELR shooter, so what your "analysis" can tell you must be taken with a grain of salt. If Cd curves are the "best" solution then ELR would be a lot more easier than it actually is and hits should happen all day long, unfortunately that's not the case. About a month ago, the ELR World Record was achieved using Coldbore in just two shots. Again, it's not me "claiming" this, it is the shooter who publicly said that he tried all apps and the best one around was Patagonia's. I'm not a "fan" I prefer to consider myself a regular guy who happened to test all possible apps in the real world out there just to find what works and what does not.

Armchair ballistics is a great way to spend time on a rainy day, unfortunately for those of us who spend more time on the range, it does not work the same.

Ow, here we go again.

"Wrong again, the engine is the most important piece, because with similar data you get right or wrong predictions running different engines, so being the data the common factor, all the difference is in the engine and it does not take a PhD degree to grasp such a simple fact."

Again: the exact (to a rounding error) predictions of Trasol can be reliably replicated with a 3DOF engine all the way down to Mach 0.8. The link is in my Trasol review, the code is open source and available for anyone to verify the claim. To me this closes the question.

Believing that one or the other way to obtain the *exact same figures* is somehow "more important" or "more superior" is a question of faith; I am not interested in religious discussions, sorry.

"Dopple radar can't follow small arms projectiles beyond 1000 or 1200 yards (give or take depending on bullet size) and it's not me saying this, it's the radar manufacturers specs."

You must have been reading the wrong specs. Let me Google it for you.

"[...] This offers a family of radars that will support e.g. measurement of 5.56mm caliber rounds from up to 250m for the smallest radar, and up to 3,000m for the largest radar."
Quoted from Weibel Radars official Web site --
https://weibelradars.com/instrumentation/velocity-measuring/medium-to-long-range/

(AB, for instance, reportedly use Weibel equipment, among others):

3000 meters = 3280 yards > "1000 or 1200"

"I speak from real world experince"

You say it. That may or may not be true. Considering other things you claim, it does not sound very convincing.

"you are not a LR and much less a ELR shooter"

Who told you that? Did they somehow substantiate this claim, or was it just a clumsy bullshit attempt in absence of other arguments?

 

[THEIS]

"[...] This offers a family of radars that will support e.g. measurement of 5.56mm caliber rounds from up to 250m for the smallest radar, and up to 3,000m for the largest radar."
Quoted from Weibel Radars official Web site --
https://weibelradars.com/instrumentation/velocity-measuring/medium-to-long-range/

(AB, for instance, reportedly use Weibel equipment, among others):

Hi,

LOLOL RUAG test facility in Thun does not even have a 30033PE or a 7036PE, lol...do you seriously think AB has either one of those models?
There is a reason AB themselves say they use a combination of doppler and acoustic systems.
The only facilities I know of (In which the industry can rent the usage of) that has either one of those radar systems is the Overberg Test Range in ZA and Yuma Proving Grounds (But I think they discontinued that radar at Yuma).

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[LastShot300]

Ow, here we go again.

"Wrong again, the engine is the most important piece, because with similar data you get right or wrong predictions running different engines, so being the data the common factor, all the difference is in the engine and it does not take a PhD degree to grasp such a simple fact."

Again: the exact (to a rounding error) predictions of Trasol can be reliably replicated with a 3DOF engine all the way down to Mach 0.8. The link is in my Trasol review, the code is open source and available for anyone to verify the claim. To me this closes the question.

Believing that one or the other way to obtain the *exact same figures* is somehow "more important" or "more superior" is a question of faith; I am not interested in religious discussions, sorry.

"Dopple radar can't follow small arms projectiles beyond 1000 or 1200 yards (give or take depending on bullet size) and it's not me saying this, it's the radar manufacturers specs."

You must have been reading the wrong specs. Let me Google it for you.

"[...] This offers a family of radars that will support e.g. measurement of 5.56mm caliber rounds from up to 250m for the smallest radar, and up to 3,000m for the largest radar."
Quoted from Weibel Radars official Web site --
https://weibelradars.com/instrumentation/velocity-measuring/medium-to-long-range/

(AB, for instance, reportedly use Weibel equipment, among others):

3000 meters = 3280 yards > "1000 or 1200"

"I speak from real world experince"

You say it. That may or may not be true. Considering other things you claim, it does not sound very convincing.

"you are not a LR and much less a ELR shooter"

Who told you that? Did they somehow substantiate this claim, or was it just a clumsy bullshit attempt in absence of other arguments?

My dear friend, let me address what you said,

BR-1001 - Infinition

A Doppler radar antenna specially designed for muzzle velocity as well as for short to medium range velocity measurements.

www.infinition.com

CALIBER	RANGE PERFORMANCE (TYPICAL / MAXIMUM)
5.56mm (-58dBsm RCS)	350m / 500m
155mm (-25dBsm RCS)	1700m / 3300m

same for Weibel...you actually posted " 5.56mm caliber rounds from up to 250m for the smallest radar, and up to 3,000m for the largest radar." and let's highlight LARGEST, so I stand correctly stated having said "for small arms projectiles" meaning don't ask for miracles, Doppler is not magic and beyond 1000/1200 you only get NOISE.

I've read you piece on Trasol, and it's a simple curve fit, not "reverse engineering" not by any stretch of the imagination. Of course, unless we dwelve into religious stuff LOL

I do ELR almost every weekend, and I don't need any recognition from you or anyone else. Like I said IIRC you are not a LR/ELR shooter, your words on past posts.

Just for the record, I do believe in real science as done by real ballisticians.

 

[LastShot300]

Hi,

LOLOL RUAG test facility in Thun does not even have a 30033PE or a 7036PE, lol...do you seriously think AB has either one of those models?
There is a reason AB themselves say they use a combination of doppler and acoustic systems.
The only facilities I know of (In which the industry can rent the usage of) that has either one of those radar systems is the Overberg Test Range in ZA and Yuma Proving Grounds (But I think they discontinued that radar at Yuma).

Sincerely,
Theis

Excellent point, morever having an artillery grade radar means nothing because the real issue is with tracking the size (reflective surface) of the projectile, in other words you may have got the most expensive Doppler radar on the planet and still won't be able to track beyond 1000/1200 if and only if, you are launching .50 cal projos and stretch down the projectice size and the less tracking range you get, as simple as that.

 

[ptosis]

My dear friend, let me address what you said,

BR-1001 - Infinition

A Doppler radar antenna specially designed for muzzle velocity as well as for short to medium range velocity measurements.

www.infinition.com

CALIBER	RANGE PERFORMANCE (TYPICAL / MAXIMUM)
5.56mm (-58dBsm RCS)	350m / 500m
155mm (-25dBsm RCS)	1700m / 3300m

same for Weibel...you actually posted " 5.56mm caliber rounds from up to 250m for the smallest radar, and up to 3,000m for the largest radar." and let's highlight LARGEST, so I stand correctly stated having said "for small arms projectiles" meaning don't ask for miracles, Doppler is not magic and beyond 1000/1200 you only get NOISE.

I've read you piece on Trasol, and it's a simple curve fit, not "reverse engineering" not by any stretch of the imagination. Of course, unless we dwelve into religious stuff LOL

I do ELR almost every weekend, and I don't need any recognition from you or anyone else. Like I said IIRC you are not a LR/ELR shooter, your words on past posts.

Just for the record, I do believe in real science as done by real ballisticians.

What you quote here is the specs of Infinition BR 1001, which is an entirely different unit from an entirely different manufacturer than my link leads to.

"No radar can measure beyond 1000 yards, because one unit from one manufacturer cannot." Is that what you're saying? L: Logic.

When Weibel say their largest ballistic radar can trace 5.56 up to 3000 m, are you saying they are blatantly lying on their official site, and what they in fact get beyond 1000-1200 yds is noise, or is it 5.56 which does not qualify for you as a "small arms projectile"

Or when Barnes say --
"Our Doppler radar system can track bullets out to 1500 meters [1640 yds, P.], recording the velocity and time of flight of that bullet every few feet along the flight path."

https://www.barnesbullets.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Use-of-Doppler-Radar-to-Generate-Trajectory-Solutions-Rev-1-6-15-V2.pdf

Or when Warner Tools company publish a radar trace of a bullet down to Mach 0.737

https://www.warner-tool.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/30_155_dopplerdatasheet.pdf

Are you calling bullshit on all these people and businesses?

I know, reality can be tough at times.

"Like I said IIRC you are not a LR/ELR shooter, your words on past posts."

My words? A quote, maybe? Or shall we qualify this as your fantasy and, like I said, "a clumsy bullshit attempt in absence of other arguments"?

 

[THEIS]

Hi,

Show me 1 bullet manufacturer or ammunition testing facility in the world, not just the USA that uses either of those Weibel Radar systems that can actually handle 5.56 out to the 3000m distances.

One of the largest IF not the largest independent testing and accreditation companies in the USA..NTS Testing facilities has a radar system that can handle 2000m but not 3000m.

There is a HUGE difference in a radar system being ABLE to do account and track and said radar system ACTUALLY being used for such.

I can show you the speed specs of a Bugatti from a link to their website but I can assure you that I cannot go outside and find anyone with a Bugatti for me to directly verify those speed specs.

Also, you are aware that I can test a projectile on radar to show down to Mach .7 and lower without needing the radar to read at crazy distances?

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[LastShot300]

What you quote here is the specs of Infinition BR 1001, which is an entirely different unit from an entirely different manufacturer than my link leads to.

"No radar can measure beyond 1000 yards, because one unit from one manufacturer cannot." Is that what you're saying? L: Logic.

When Weibel say their largest ballistic radar can trace 5.56 up to 3000 m, are you saying they are blatantly lying on their official site, and what they in fact get beyond 1000-1200 yds is noise, or is it 5.56 which does not qualify for you as a "small arms projectile"

Or when Barnes say --
"Our Doppler radar system can track bullets out to 1500 meters [1640 yds, P.], recording the velocity and time of flight of that bullet every few feet along the flight path."

https://www.barnesbullets.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Use-of-Doppler-Radar-to-Generate-Trajectory-Solutions-Rev-1-6-15-V2.pdf

Or when Warner Tools company publish a radar trace of a bullet down to Mach 0.737

https://www.warner-tool.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/30_155_dopplerdatasheet.pdf

Are you calling bullshit on all these people and businesses?

I know, reality can be tough at times.

"Like I said IIRC you are not a LR/ELR shooter, your words on past posts."

My words? A quote, maybe? Or shall we qualify this as your fantasy and, like I said, "a clumsy bullshit attempt in absence of other arguments"?

M friend, we can go on this forever...just because you are not admitting real facts? ...or do you need a text comprehension lecture?

I have a friend who is the representative for Weibel, so I know what I'm talking about. Radar signature is a function of reflective surface (first and foremost) and atmospheric propagation conditions. Period. End of discussion. But do yourself a favor and just make a call to Weibel and see for yourself. This conversation is moot fot the simple reason that no Weibel radar can trace a small arms projectile up to 3000 meters...but if you want to believe that, no problem at all be my guest, this is a free speech forum and your entitled to believe that you are a real ballistician if that makes you happy.

Playing the game like "are you calling these people..." only speaks volumes about your way of argumenting, because it's a cheap trick that may work with your friends...not me, sorry for that.

And no, Weibel never said or wrote down that their radars can trace a 5.56mm up to 3000 meters, that's you misreading the technical info, so please do not try that move with me or anyone else, you are just spreading out false and misleading information.

Barnes utilizes exactly the same unit I posted above (Infinition), so they can claim whatever they want...but I guess the manufacturer is not the one making false claims or you saying Infinition is lying?

Yes, radar reflection on a very special day may track up to 1500 meters...a .50 cal projo never a 5.56mm. But that's the exception not the norm.

One more time, you are confusing a Cd table with a real radar track, not the same thing. A Cd table is a raw data file post processed and extrapolated. Ask Warner for the raw data file and you will start to understand something about how this works in the real word and not in some imaginary place.

Well, let's say you are right and you are now an ELR shooter...that is not changing a comma of what I've stated before...I think you are in a real need for a reality check my friend.

 

[LastShot300]

Hi,

Show me 1 bullet manufacturer or ammunition testing facility in the world, not just the USA that uses either of those Weibel Radar systems that can actually handle 5.56 out to the 3000m distances.

One of the largest IF not the largest independent testing and accreditation companies in the USA..NTS Testing facilities has a radar system that can handle 2000m but not 3000m.

There is a HUGE difference in a radar system being ABLE to do account and track and said radar system ACTUALLY being used for such.

I can show you the speed specs of a Bugatti from a link to their website but I can assure you that I cannot go outside and find anyone with a Bugatti for me to directly verify those speed specs.

Also, you are aware that I can test a projectile on radar to show down to Mach .7 and lower without needing the radar to read at crazy distances?

Sincerely,
Theis

Another excellent point raised just be aware that we are dealing with a super expert here

 

[ptosis]

Hi,

Show me 1 bullet manufacturer or ammunition testing facility in the world, not just the USA that uses either of those Weibel Radar systems that can actually handle 5.56 out to the 3000m distances.

One of the largest IF not the largest independent testing and accreditation companies in the USA..NTS Testing facilities has a radar system that can handle 2000m but not 3000m.

There is a HUGE difference in a radar system being ABLE to do account and track and said radar system ACTUALLY being used for such.

I can show you the speed specs of a Bugatti from a link to their website but I can assure you that I cannot go outside and find anyone with a Bugatti for me to directly verify those speed specs.

Also, you are aware that I can test a projectile on radar to show down to Mach .7 and lower without needing the radar to read at crazy distances?

Sincerely,
Theis

Yep. You are correct on all account.
The existence of radars able to track 5.56 at 3K does not mean that everybody uses them. It just means that "1000 or 1200 yards" are by far not the limit.
Also, indeed, there is no need to start your projectile at Mach 10, if what you actually want to inspect is the the transonic segment.

 

[Lowlight]

I have shot Hornady Doppler on their range, and I know what it can and cannot track. Somewhere I have video you can watch it track the round, but I can't find it on YT.

I shot rounds as small as 6.5, 136gr Scenars, as well as 300WM across their system and while it can track it to around 2000m, it begins to scatter and fall apart around 1600-1800 depending on the round. They catch it, lose it, catch it, lose it.

Then Hornady erases the trackback to 1500 and again to 800 to provide them the final data they use to determine their values.

All software is pretty good inside 1000 yards, most of the issues are the shooter.

Beyond transonic, a lot of software begins to fall apart, and how you really look at it from a practical standpoint is,

1. Can my computer follow a track from 100 to beyond subsonic?

2. Do I have to make a subsonic chart for those cases beyond 1000 yards?

I find I can get most software to work the second way more than the first, the goal should be the first, but that transition causes a lot of problems with the software. You either have to work to it or work after it, but very few programs correctly work through it. That is why we have a million comments on how great a lot of these apps are because people don't use them to their full capabilities to them everything works right.

this is the missing context of my previous posts have been

We are arguing about the software and whether it is giving 1% or up to 3%, and in reality, it's still really small but in reality, it's almost 3x more than it should be, and why I say programmers are lazy this is what I mean, the short answer is the easy answer and good enough is widely repeated, my calls are to repair the minutia from the past and fix it because. you can. If the computer said to me don't do any of this until closer to 10 mils, I might cut them a bit of slack, instead, I have to tell people to stop doing this shit at 500 yards because the computers make it noticeable so everyone jumps on it.

 

[ZiaHunter]

I’m using FFS, TRASOL, STRELOKpro and in the past CB1, CB1 and FFS are very close, two good engines, I don’t like CB1 interface but this is another story, the engine is good.
using same data DA 0 meters, same speed, G7 BC for TRASOL and Strelokpro .415 ( AB book CE MTH L 350 ) and 0.871 for FFS, I’ve about same Solutions, 0.871 was calculated using labradar and shotmarker downrange, I had very good results till 2200 meters ( max distance for me in my range ) TRASOL and FFS same Solutions Strelok very close, but difficult to say if 25 MIL is better than 25.3 ( Strelok Solution ) at 2200 meters on hilly terrain is very easy to be on target with the predictive Solution or may be .5 up/.5dw..
So I’m fine with these software, FFS is my primary but I like also the others one.

We ran a head to head test between CB and FFS at Gunsite a couple of years ago. FFS was run on a Nomad and CB on a Juno. Solutions were calculated for each shot out to 2200 and solutions were virtually identical. FFS is my goto software and tether with a trigger cable to my PLRF. The ability to interface the LRF with the software as well as building range cards is the main reason I prefer FFS over CB.

 

[ptosis]

M friend, we can go on this forever...just because you are not admitting real facts? ...or do you need a text comprehension lecture?

I have a friend who is the representative for Weibel, so I know what I'm talking about. Radar signature is a function of reflective surface (first and foremost) and atmospheric propagation conditions. Period. End of discussion. But do yourself a favor and just make a call to Weibel and see for yourself. This conversation is moot fot the simple reason that no Weibel radar can trace a small arms projectile up to 3000 meters...but if you want to believe that, no problem at all be my guest, this is a free speech forum and your entitled to believe that you are a real ballistician if that makes you happy.

Playing the game like "are you calling these people..." only speaks volumes about your way of argumenting, because it's a cheap trick that may work with your friends...not me, sorry for that.

And no, Weibel never said or wrote down that their radars can trace a 5.56mm up to 3000 meters, that's you misreading the technical info, so please do not try that move with me or anyone else, you are just spreading out false and misleading information.

Barnes utilizes exactly the same unit I posted above (Infinition), so they can claim whatever they want...but I guess the manufacturer is not the one making false claims or you saying Infinition is lying?

Yes, radar reflection on a very special day may track up to 1500 meters...a .50 cal projo never a 5.56mm. But that's the exception not the norm.

One more time, you are confusing a Cd table with a real radar track, not the same thing. A Cd table is a raw data file post processed and extrapolated. Ask Warner for the raw data file and you will start to understand something about how this works in the real word and not in some imaginary place.

Well, let's say you are right and you are now an ELR shooter...that is not changing a comma of what I've stated before...I think you are in a real need for a reality check my friend.

Just to close this conversation, as it is getting late, and it's been a long day here.

re: "And no, Weibel never said or wrote down that their radars can trace a 5.56mm up to 3000 meters, that's you misreading the technical info, so please do not try that move with me or anyone else, you are just spreading out false and misleading information."

Wrong. This is exactly what Weibel are saying, in writing:

This is a screenshot of a PDF downloadable at the Weibel site link I posted earlier:

Velocity measurement for shooting ranges | Projectiles

Our SL series of radars are highly suitable for velocity measuring of projectiles travelling over all distances such as artillery, mortars, rockets and more.

weibelradars.com

PDF here:

https://dkkn97s94if1u.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/CS-1067_Velocity-Radars_Web.pdf

re: "Well, let's say you are right and you are now an ELR shooter..." --

Well, let's say that speaking with real people instead of imaginary ones is already a step in the right direction; don't stop there.

 

[LastShot300]

Just to close this conversation, as it is getting late, and it's been a long day here.

re: "And no, Weibel never said or wrote down that their radars can trace a 5.56mm up to 3000 meters, that's you misreading the technical info, so please do not try that move with me or anyone else, you are just spreading out false and misleading information."

Wrong. This is exactly what Weibel are saying, in writing:
This is a screenshot of a PDF downloadable at the Weibel site link I posted earlier:

Velocity measurement for shooting ranges | Projectiles

Our SL series of radars are highly suitable for velocity measuring of projectiles travelling over all distances such as artillery, mortars, rockets and more.

weibelradars.com

PDF here:

https://dkkn97s94if1u.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/CS-1067_Velocity-Radars_Web.pdf

re: "Well, let's say you are right and you are now an ELR shooter..." --

Well, let's say that speaking with real people instead of imaginary ones is already a step in the right direction; don't stop there.

My friend, you are in real dire need of comprehension skills ..that's an array of radars and as stated depends on the SNR, no magic here, please insert coin and try again

 

[ptosis]

My friend, you are in real dire need of comprehension skills ..that's an array of radars and as stated depends on the SNR, no magic here, please insert coin and try again

I see reality for you is never an obstacle. That's the spirit!

 

[LastShot300]

I see reality for you is never an obstacle. That's the spirit!

I have to admit your special, even when blattanly wrong you keep the torch lighted up

 

[ptosis]

I have to admit your special, even when blattanly wrong you keep the torch lighted up

[sorry to everyone for drifting off-topic]

Allright, new day = new fun, let's study this phenomenon of LastShot300's "creative reading".

Previously on our show:

LastShot300 (actual quote): "Weibel never said or wrote down that their radars can trace a 5.56mm up to 3000 meters"

Weibel's official material (actual quote): "This offers a family of radars that will support e.g. measurement of 5.56mm caliber rounds from up to 250m for the smallest radar, and up to 3,000m for the largest radar."
Also there is a table with three columns – Radar (model), Weapon (5.56 NATO in all cases), Typical range (up to 3000 meters)

LastShot300: No, not at all, it absolutely totally does not say that typical 5.56 projectile tracing range for some radar models is 3000 m. You just don't understand!

Question from the audience: how do you (do you?), LastShot300, read and understand the Weibel's statement and table?
Are there too many confusing numbers in "5.56", or are the words "typical range" too long?