Just picked up a cheap Dell Axim PDA. Does anyone use this to run any ballistic progam? If so, what progam and any info on downloading and uploading to the PDA?
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
Lots.
someone just came out with a new one in the exterior ballistics section. But you can use Patagonia, http://www.patagoniaballistics.com/
FFS
http://www.precisionworkbench.com/
I think horus
http://www.horusvision.com/software.php
Lots.
someone just came out with a new one in the exterior ballistics section. But you can use Patagonia, http://www.patagoniaballistics.com/
FFS
http://www.precisionworkbench.com/
I think horus
http://www.horusvision.com/software.php
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
This has worked well for me so far.
http://home.comcast.net/~jesse99/anyrange.html
Check it out. I'm sure the others are more advance and have libraries of bullet info but they are also nearly 4x the price.
CM.
This has worked well for me so far.
http://home.comcast.net/~jesse99/anyrange.html
Check it out. I'm sure the others are more advance and have libraries of bullet info but they are also nearly 4x the price.
CM.
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
Thanks for the info....I'm gonna try out the Silhouette Ballistics program first...the price is right.
If that doesn't cut it, then I'll give Exbal a try.
Thanks for the info....I'm gonna try out the Silhouette Ballistics program first...the price is right.
If that doesn't cut it, then I'll give Exbal a try.
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
Fascinating subject ballistics programs .I use Pejsa on my hp ipaq pocket pc and find it very easy to work with and to be truthful to date I find it the more accurate between Exbal , JBM and Prescion Workbench.Pejsa rates his maths the best to arrive at a correct flight pattern but it is different to other programs.I have been wanting throw this into the arena for some time and get feed back as owners of which ever program often say theirs is more accurate than others .example 1000 yards 139gr lapua scenar .615 bc 2870ft per sec
scope 2.6 high zero 110 yards temp 59f aiR pressure 29.53 pejsa elevation 28.26 moa
jbm 26.40moa
Precision work bench 26.80moa -turning off options of coriolis and hemisphere
exbal with single bc 26.25moa with retardation bc with velocities supplied by Bryn litz ..598-3000fps .586-2500fps .565-2000fps .499-below last speed-mulitple BC used gives 27.50MOA.
so to summarize-a high of 28.26moa down to 26.40moa at 1000 yards is a 18.6 inch differential.Someone is right and some others are wrong in this Ballistics programe game .It would be great to have others input whom have seriously tested their programes without pride or prejudice
Fascinating subject ballistics programs .I use Pejsa on my hp ipaq pocket pc and find it very easy to work with and to be truthful to date I find it the more accurate between Exbal , JBM and Prescion Workbench.Pejsa rates his maths the best to arrive at a correct flight pattern but it is different to other programs.I have been wanting throw this into the arena for some time and get feed back as owners of which ever program often say theirs is more accurate than others .example 1000 yards 139gr lapua scenar .615 bc 2870ft per sec
scope 2.6 high zero 110 yards temp 59f aiR pressure 29.53 pejsa elevation 28.26 moa
jbm 26.40moa
Precision work bench 26.80moa -turning off options of coriolis and hemisphere
exbal with single bc 26.25moa with retardation bc with velocities supplied by Bryn litz ..598-3000fps .586-2500fps .565-2000fps .499-below last speed-mulitple BC used gives 27.50MOA.
so to summarize-a high of 28.26moa down to 26.40moa at 1000 yards is a 18.6 inch differential.Someone is right and some others are wrong in this Ballistics programe game .It would be great to have others input whom have seriously tested their programes without pride or prejudice
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
The Pejsa equations are flexible and simple to program. At high supersonic speeds (above 1300-1400 fps), the program can be very accurate.
As with all things, there's no free lunch.
The price you pay for simple equations is that the bullet description becomes more complex. Traditional solutions only require a BC referenced to some standard (G1, G7, etc) However the Pejsa solution requires more information about the bullet including retardation coeff, something you have to shoot at multiple distances (under carefully measured conditions) in order to establish for each bullet.
A further limitation of the Pejsa method is that it requires 'creative' manipulation at transonic speeds. The analytic equation that's used to describe the bullets drag coefficient is very precise in the high supersonic region (above 1300-1400 fps), but begins to diverge, depending on projectile shape, as it slows down. The shape of the drag curve at transonic speed is essentially 'made up' by the programmer, and no two Pejsa solutions are likely to return the same answers below 1300 fps. For this reason you can expect increasing error (more drop) at longer ranges and slower flight speeds. I believe this is what ch'e is seeing above (Pejsa program predicted the most drop).
One last thing about the Pejsa method: it doesn't account for effects of air temperature on speed of sound. The speed of sound changes with air temperature, and the drag coefficient is a function of Mach number, which depends on the speed of sound. In Pejsa's solution, the bullet's drag coefficient is purely a function of velocity, which will introduce errors in non-standard temperature, especially at flight speeds near the speed of sound. Note: this temperature problem isn't unique to Pejsa, the well known and commonly used Siacci method suffers from the same limitation.
Regarding the <span style="font-style: italic">accuracy</span> of ballistics programs, nothing beats JBM. It doesn't have all the graphic displays and libraries of the high dollar programs, but it runs a proper numeric solution, and returns answers that are truly as accurate as the inputs. I always recommend JBM, using BC's referenced to a proper standard (G7 for long range bullets) as the standard to compare the accuracy of any ballistics program.
-Bryan
The Pejsa equations are flexible and simple to program. At high supersonic speeds (above 1300-1400 fps), the program can be very accurate.
As with all things, there's no free lunch.
The price you pay for simple equations is that the bullet description becomes more complex. Traditional solutions only require a BC referenced to some standard (G1, G7, etc) However the Pejsa solution requires more information about the bullet including retardation coeff, something you have to shoot at multiple distances (under carefully measured conditions) in order to establish for each bullet.
A further limitation of the Pejsa method is that it requires 'creative' manipulation at transonic speeds. The analytic equation that's used to describe the bullets drag coefficient is very precise in the high supersonic region (above 1300-1400 fps), but begins to diverge, depending on projectile shape, as it slows down. The shape of the drag curve at transonic speed is essentially 'made up' by the programmer, and no two Pejsa solutions are likely to return the same answers below 1300 fps. For this reason you can expect increasing error (more drop) at longer ranges and slower flight speeds. I believe this is what ch'e is seeing above (Pejsa program predicted the most drop).
One last thing about the Pejsa method: it doesn't account for effects of air temperature on speed of sound. The speed of sound changes with air temperature, and the drag coefficient is a function of Mach number, which depends on the speed of sound. In Pejsa's solution, the bullet's drag coefficient is purely a function of velocity, which will introduce errors in non-standard temperature, especially at flight speeds near the speed of sound. Note: this temperature problem isn't unique to Pejsa, the well known and commonly used Siacci method suffers from the same limitation.
Regarding the <span style="font-style: italic">accuracy</span> of ballistics programs, nothing beats JBM. It doesn't have all the graphic displays and libraries of the high dollar programs, but it runs a proper numeric solution, and returns answers that are truly as accurate as the inputs. I always recommend JBM, using BC's referenced to a proper standard (G7 for long range bullets) as the standard to compare the accuracy of any ballistics program.
-Bryan
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
There's an old saying - "A man with one watch knows what time it is. A man with two watches is never sure."
A ballistic program is a computer model of air density and projectile behaviour. The test of the validity of a computer model is whether it produces predictions which match real-world results.
My approach to accurate long-range predictions with a ballistic programs is to "tune" the program output to match my actual field shooting data at the longest range I can reliably reach with a given cartridge.
That can be done by modifying B.C.s and/or muzzle velocity. Some programs have explicit mechanisms built in for doing that, like Field Firing Solutions.
JBM is indeed an excellent program. It even has the recently-added ability to create a drop table based on Density Altitude.
Given that ballistics programs are all going to need "tuning", I pick a ballistic program for a PDA based upon the feature set I'm going to need in the field.
Field Firing Solutions, which was designed for the needs of military sniper teams, and includes the ability to accept position data from GPS receivers as wells as take data from laser rangefinders which output distance and bearing data, has the feature set I want.
There's an old saying - "A man with one watch knows what time it is. A man with two watches is never sure."
A ballistic program is a computer model of air density and projectile behaviour. The test of the validity of a computer model is whether it produces predictions which match real-world results.
My approach to accurate long-range predictions with a ballistic programs is to "tune" the program output to match my actual field shooting data at the longest range I can reliably reach with a given cartridge.
That can be done by modifying B.C.s and/or muzzle velocity. Some programs have explicit mechanisms built in for doing that, like Field Firing Solutions.
JBM is indeed an excellent program. It even has the recently-added ability to create a drop table based on Density Altitude.
Given that ballistics programs are all going to need "tuning", I pick a ballistic program for a PDA based upon the feature set I'm going to need in the field.
Field Firing Solutions, which was designed for the needs of military sniper teams, and includes the ability to accept position data from GPS receivers as wells as take data from laser rangefinders which output distance and bearing data, has the feature set I want.
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
BTW Lindy... what laser range finder are you referring to? I'm assuming Uncle Sam type stuff?
BTW Lindy... what laser range finder are you referring to? I'm assuming Uncle Sam type stuff?
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
FFS will take data from:
Newcon 2500CI
Newcon 4500CI
TruPulse 360
Vector 1500
Vector IV
FFS will take data from:
Newcon 2500CI
Newcon 4500CI
TruPulse 360
Vector 1500
Vector IV
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
Lindy....what would you suggest I use so that I can get the proper dope for dialing in on LR shots?
Lindy....what would you suggest I use so that I can get the proper dope for dialing in on LR shots?
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
I assume that you're asking about programs. As I indicated above, Field Firing Solutions is my primary program based on the feature set. If what you want is simply a good ballistic program, Exbal is very good.
I assume that you're asking about programs. As I indicated above, Field Firing Solutions is my primary program based on the feature set. If what you want is simply a good ballistic program, Exbal is very good.
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
JBM is a very good program and it's free to use on the web but doesn't fit on a PDA.
Having said that I found the RSI Ballistic Lab to be the best ballistic program there is. I'd like to see a few other tools added to it and it too doesn't fit on a PDA
The Patagona LB program is another very good program based on Dr Pejsa's but adding many more tools and adding adjustments for Temps among a few and this program will fit on your PDA.
I've heard good stuff about the exbal but never took the time to try it out or figure out what or who's calculations they're based on.
For a PDA I'd go with Loadbase.
JBM is a very good program and it's free to use on the web but doesn't fit on a PDA.
Having said that I found the RSI Ballistic Lab to be the best ballistic program there is. I'd like to see a few other tools added to it and it too doesn't fit on a PDA
The Patagona LB program is another very good program based on Dr Pejsa's but adding many more tools and adding adjustments for Temps among a few and this program will fit on your PDA.
I've heard good stuff about the exbal but never took the time to try it out or figure out what or who's calculations they're based on.
For a PDA I'd go with Loadbase.
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
Guys,
Sorry its late here and i'm kinda slow right now.
Whats the difference between FFP and Exbal? Features wise that is. Both seem to cost about the same.
Can you run FFP on a WM 6 phone? A Motorla moto q to be exact. I"m thinking the Exbal will run on WM 6 phone. Correct me if i'm wrong.
Thanks for your help.
SOTA
Guys,
Sorry its late here and i'm kinda slow right now.
Whats the difference between FFP and Exbal? Features wise that is. Both seem to cost about the same.
Can you run FFP on a WM 6 phone? A Motorla moto q to be exact. I"m thinking the Exbal will run on WM 6 phone. Correct me if i'm wrong.
Thanks for your help.
SOTA
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
Hey Sota go and browse this site http://www.pejsa.com/ Its a very easy program to use and I think the creator just might be a ballistics genius -alot smarter than me anyway!
Hey Sota go and browse this site http://www.pejsa.com/ Its a very easy program to use and I think the creator just might be a ballistics genius -alot smarter than me anyway!
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ch'e</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think the creator just might be a ballistics genius </div></div>
Dr Pejsa is a very smart yet a very stubborn ole man. He had some very ingenious ideas and concepts when it came to ballistics modeling. His problem was he felt he knew more than anyone and everyone else on the subject and wasn’t open to constructive ideas/criticism. His program is good and his ballistics calculations are very simple and straight forward.
Over the years many folks (including myself) have had ideas to improve his program and calculations and he’s wanted nothing to do with them. He’s an incredibly cranky and belligerent ole man.
Not sure how Gus (Creator of LoadBase 2.0 ballistic program) was able to get through to Dr Pejsa, but he did and Dr Pejsa understood the direction Gus wanted to take his previous program and calculations. LB 2.0 is based on Dr Pejsa’s original program with improved calculations and tons of cool features.
It is one of the best and most accurate programs money can buy if one is willing to take the necessary steps to get all of the input data required.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ch'e</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think the creator just might be a ballistics genius </div></div>
Dr Pejsa is a very smart yet a very stubborn ole man. He had some very ingenious ideas and concepts when it came to ballistics modeling. His problem was he felt he knew more than anyone and everyone else on the subject and wasn’t open to constructive ideas/criticism. His program is good and his ballistics calculations are very simple and straight forward.
Over the years many folks (including myself) have had ideas to improve his program and calculations and he’s wanted nothing to do with them. He’s an incredibly cranky and belligerent ole man.
Not sure how Gus (Creator of LoadBase 2.0 ballistic program) was able to get through to Dr Pejsa, but he did and Dr Pejsa understood the direction Gus wanted to take his previous program and calculations. LB 2.0 is based on Dr Pejsa’s original program with improved calculations and tons of cool features.
It is one of the best and most accurate programs money can buy if one is willing to take the necessary steps to get all of the input data required.
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jeff in TX</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Over the years many folks (including myself) have had ideas to improve his program and calculations and he’s wanted nothing to do with them. He’s an incredibly cranky and belligerent ole man.
</div></div>
When I originally started testing bullets for BC and deciding what standards to use (G1/G7), I contacted Dr. Pejsa to see if he was interested in working with me to establish the unique 'retardation coefficients' and other bullet performance things that are specific to his method. I was offering to calculate these special constants from my test results for the sole purpose of benefiting those who used his program. He wanted nothing to do with it, and didn't agree to help me help him.
No doubt Pejsa's <span style="font-style: italic">equations</span> are 'simple', but that simplicity is possible because the information required to describe the <span style="font-style: italic">bullet</span> is more complex (no free lunch). I'm of the opinion that the complexity belongs in the equations and not forced onto the user. As many with 'pure math' backgrounds, Dr. Pejsa is reluctant to 'taint' his beautiful and elegantly simple equations with the 'dirty and practical' information that they need to work.
If you want the constants required to properly describe a bullet to the Pejsa method, you have to do your own careful testing for each bullet, for each velocity that you want it to be accurate for.
-Bryan
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jeff in TX</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Over the years many folks (including myself) have had ideas to improve his program and calculations and he’s wanted nothing to do with them. He’s an incredibly cranky and belligerent ole man.
</div></div>
When I originally started testing bullets for BC and deciding what standards to use (G1/G7), I contacted Dr. Pejsa to see if he was interested in working with me to establish the unique 'retardation coefficients' and other bullet performance things that are specific to his method. I was offering to calculate these special constants from my test results for the sole purpose of benefiting those who used his program. He wanted nothing to do with it, and didn't agree to help me help him.
No doubt Pejsa's <span style="font-style: italic">equations</span> are 'simple', but that simplicity is possible because the information required to describe the <span style="font-style: italic">bullet</span> is more complex (no free lunch). I'm of the opinion that the complexity belongs in the equations and not forced onto the user. As many with 'pure math' backgrounds, Dr. Pejsa is reluctant to 'taint' his beautiful and elegantly simple equations with the 'dirty and practical' information that they need to work.
If you want the constants required to properly describe a bullet to the Pejsa method, you have to do your own careful testing for each bullet, for each velocity that you want it to be accurate for.
-Bryan
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bryan Litz</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jeff in TX</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Over the years many folks (including myself) have had ideas to improve his program and calculations and he’s wanted nothing to do with them. He’s an incredibly cranky and belligerent ole man.
</div></div>
When I originally started testing bullets for BC and deciding what standards to use (G1/G7), I contacted Dr. Pejsa to see if he was interested in working with me to establish the unique 'retardation coefficients' and other bullet performance things that are specific to his method. I was offering to calculate these special constants from my test results for the sole purpose of benefiting those who used his program. He wanted nothing to do with it, and didn't agree to help me help him.
No doubt Pejsa's <span style="font-style: italic">equations</span> are 'simple', but that simplicity is possible because the information required to describe the <span style="font-style: italic">bullet</span> is more complex (no free lunch). I'm of the opinion that the complexity belongs in the equations and not forced onto the user. As many with 'pure math' backgrounds, Dr. Pejsa is reluctant to 'taint' his beautiful and elegantly simple equations with the 'dirty and practical' information that they need to work.
If you want the constants required to properly describe a bullet to the Pejsa method, you have to do your own careful testing for each bullet, for each velocity that you want it to be accurate for.
-Bryan </div></div>
Brian,
I see you and I have had roughly the same conversation with Dr Pejsa as well as the same results. I totally agree with you as their is no free lunch when it comes to ballistic equations. If it was that simple we wouldn't still be searching to improve or find better solutions.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bryan Litz</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jeff in TX</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Over the years many folks (including myself) have had ideas to improve his program and calculations and he’s wanted nothing to do with them. He’s an incredibly cranky and belligerent ole man.
</div></div>
When I originally started testing bullets for BC and deciding what standards to use (G1/G7), I contacted Dr. Pejsa to see if he was interested in working with me to establish the unique 'retardation coefficients' and other bullet performance things that are specific to his method. I was offering to calculate these special constants from my test results for the sole purpose of benefiting those who used his program. He wanted nothing to do with it, and didn't agree to help me help him.
No doubt Pejsa's <span style="font-style: italic">equations</span> are 'simple', but that simplicity is possible because the information required to describe the <span style="font-style: italic">bullet</span> is more complex (no free lunch). I'm of the opinion that the complexity belongs in the equations and not forced onto the user. As many with 'pure math' backgrounds, Dr. Pejsa is reluctant to 'taint' his beautiful and elegantly simple equations with the 'dirty and practical' information that they need to work.
If you want the constants required to properly describe a bullet to the Pejsa method, you have to do your own careful testing for each bullet, for each velocity that you want it to be accurate for.
-Bryan </div></div>
Brian,
I see you and I have had roughly the same conversation with Dr Pejsa as well as the same results. I totally agree with you as their is no free lunch when it comes to ballistic equations. If it was that simple we wouldn't still be searching to improve or find better solutions.
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
I have patagonia loadbase and like it-- has more field firing options and reticle info compared to JBM. Downfall is can't figure out how to input info in G7 format versus G1 and today I put my chrono out and 25.5 feet and found out after the fact that 20 is the max distance you can input ???? That ssems stupid - -if I want to do a chrono correction why is it limited and why can't I put it in as a G7 BC for muzzle velocity corrections ???
I have patagonia loadbase and like it-- has more field firing options and reticle info compared to JBM. Downfall is can't figure out how to input info in G7 format versus G1 and today I put my chrono out and 25.5 feet and found out after the fact that 20 is the max distance you can input ???? That ssems stupid - -if I want to do a chrono correction why is it limited and why can't I put it in as a G7 BC for muzzle velocity corrections ???
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
My initial work with Bulletflight yesterday looks promising. May not work for everyone, but since my rifles are basicly a M24 and a MK11, and I shoot M118LR its good for me. The fact that the only way I could forget it is to forget my phone, even better
My initial work with Bulletflight yesterday looks promising. May not work for everyone, but since my rifles are basicly a M24 and a MK11, and I shoot M118LR its good for me. The fact that the only way I could forget it is to forget my phone, even better
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
Fantastic postings guys ! The down to it and dirty ol truth definatley gets the facts into the open. Has anyone put the Pejsa program to the test and seen if his results are correct or as correct as one would expect -I do appreciate in all cases one has to take into account when shooting human and exterior factors including less than constant wind across a course , extreme spead, personal inaccuracy -gee and theres more I am sure .Most programs will get you within an moa or two of the desired centre which for some is not good enough but from there one can also tune some programs -I think Lindy nailed that one bang on.The truth is though a given weight and BC and velocity should in theory fly the same flight path in the same conditions each time and someone has the correct math to do that ! Is it Art Pejsa? The fact is the conditions are rarely the same and neither are the projectiles -velocities or shooter.I would ask of both Jeff and Bryan does Pejsa have incorrect modeling info in his program compared to the other programs ? He is modeling from a constant as that is all one can do without creating a manual of possibilities.I use Pejsa and have found it pretty accurate .In saying that I havent had enough range time yet with the program to be unequivocal in being able to say it kicks arse better than other programs, I am hoping it does cause I have it.Anyway good to read all the opinions .
Fantastic postings guys ! The down to it and dirty ol truth definatley gets the facts into the open. Has anyone put the Pejsa program to the test and seen if his results are correct or as correct as one would expect -I do appreciate in all cases one has to take into account when shooting human and exterior factors including less than constant wind across a course , extreme spead, personal inaccuracy -gee and theres more I am sure .Most programs will get you within an moa or two of the desired centre which for some is not good enough but from there one can also tune some programs -I think Lindy nailed that one bang on.The truth is though a given weight and BC and velocity should in theory fly the same flight path in the same conditions each time and someone has the correct math to do that ! Is it Art Pejsa? The fact is the conditions are rarely the same and neither are the projectiles -velocities or shooter.I would ask of both Jeff and Bryan does Pejsa have incorrect modeling info in his program compared to the other programs ? He is modeling from a constant as that is all one can do without creating a manual of possibilities.I use Pejsa and have found it pretty accurate .In saying that I havent had enough range time yet with the program to be unequivocal in being able to say it kicks arse better than other programs, I am hoping it does cause I have it.Anyway good to read all the opinions .
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
Does anybody have any experience with RSI Shooting Lab?
http://www.shootingsoftware.com/ballistics.htm
Does anybody have any experience with RSI Shooting Lab?
http://www.shootingsoftware.com/ballistics.htm
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
i'm using the horus ATragMX with my 338 LM and my 7 wsm and it has proven to be very accurate so far. i also like that both the software and my saved files/data is all on the sd memory card so when my hp pda decides to act up, battery die, etc. i dont have to worry about losing the software or my data. so far i havebeen very happy with it.
i'm using the horus ATragMX with my 338 LM and my 7 wsm and it has proven to be very accurate so far. i also like that both the software and my saved files/data is all on the sd memory card so when my hp pda decides to act up, battery die, etc. i dont have to worry about losing the software or my data. so far i havebeen very happy with it.
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: lou400a</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Does anybody have any experience with RSI Shooting Lab?
http://www.shootingsoftware.com/ballistics.htm </div></div>
IMHO the RSI Ballistic lab is the best there is. The RSI Ballistic lab has tools found in no other program, is simple to use and uses the same ballistic models used by the US Army at the Aberdeen Proving grounds.
Hope it helps,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: lou400a</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Does anybody have any experience with RSI Shooting Lab?
http://www.shootingsoftware.com/ballistics.htm </div></div>
IMHO the RSI Ballistic lab is the best there is. The RSI Ballistic lab has tools found in no other program, is simple to use and uses the same ballistic models used by the US Army at the Aberdeen Proving grounds.
Hope it helps,
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
Jeff , is there any talk of RSI writing a program for a hand held pc ?
Jeff , is there any talk of RSI writing a program for a hand held pc ?
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ch'e</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jeff , is there any talk of RSI writing a program for a hand held pc ? </div></div>
I've talked with Jim Ristow a couple of times in the last year and he really isn't interested in a PDA version. He struggles with what features to take out of the regular program so it would fit on a PDA.
I know a number of us keep asking, so maybe one day he'll do it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ch'e</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jeff , is there any talk of RSI writing a program for a hand held pc ? </div></div>
I've talked with Jim Ristow a couple of times in the last year and he really isn't interested in a PDA version. He struggles with what features to take out of the regular program so it would fit on a PDA.
I know a number of us keep asking, so maybe one day he'll do it.
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
Jeff , do you have any experience with Precision Workbench and its way of solving solutions .It has a couple of tools that others dont have like coriolis and spin drift functions .
Jeff , do you have any experience with Precision Workbench and its way of solving solutions .It has a couple of tools that others dont have like coriolis and spin drift functions .
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
Ch'e,
Let's not get started on spin drift, we had a 50+ page thread a while back on this subject that went no where. There are so many factors involved in SD it is virtually impossible to calulate let a lone be able to duplicate shot to shot. I would like to understand what elements their SD calculations are based on? Let's just say...well lets not.
Unless you're shooting well over 1200 yards coriolis isn't going to do you much good and like SD it gets lost most times in other factors namely wind.
To answer your question, no I have no experience with Precision Workbench. I know nothing about it so I can't comment.
Ch'e,
Let's not get started on spin drift, we had a 50+ page thread a while back on this subject that went no where. There are so many factors involved in SD it is virtually impossible to calulate let a lone be able to duplicate shot to shot. I would like to understand what elements their SD calculations are based on? Let's just say...well lets not.
Unless you're shooting well over 1200 yards coriolis isn't going to do you much good and like SD it gets lost most times in other factors namely wind.
To answer your question, no I have no experience with Precision Workbench. I know nothing about it so I can't comment.
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
I've used Patagonia Ballistics (Loadbase 2.0) and the Nightforce software. I like Loadbase 2.0 better due to its customization features. By manipulating the drag coefficient (off of the library numbers) in Loadbase, I found that I could manipulate my drop tables to match what I saw at the range. I bite at math, but I found that this method worked well for getting drops in my 308 from 600-1100Y(I could never get any software model to give me accurate outputs from 100-1100Y with one set of numbers). With the three programmed wind zones in Loadbase and the adjusted drop data, the computer really lets you concentrate on wind reading.
My three complaints of Loadbase:
1) There is no good explanation of how to interpolate the ballistic coefficient and drag coefficient in this software--so you have to diddle with it to get the results that match real life.
2) The model slightly understates the effects of winds upon elevation (yes elevation) inputs at longer ranges.
3) The shooting solution defaults to 100Y whenever you change screens--kind of annoying when you have shifting conditions.
Strengths of Loadbase:
1) Its still more accurate than anything else I have tried.
2) Customization
3) The "onboard" features of the PDA version are pretty extensive compared to other offerings. I never use my PC-based version because the PDA does what I need.
You'll still want to keep an accurate logbook. Nothing beats a good log when shooting across different conditions.
I've used Patagonia Ballistics (Loadbase 2.0) and the Nightforce software. I like Loadbase 2.0 better due to its customization features. By manipulating the drag coefficient (off of the library numbers) in Loadbase, I found that I could manipulate my drop tables to match what I saw at the range. I bite at math, but I found that this method worked well for getting drops in my 308 from 600-1100Y(I could never get any software model to give me accurate outputs from 100-1100Y with one set of numbers). With the three programmed wind zones in Loadbase and the adjusted drop data, the computer really lets you concentrate on wind reading.
My three complaints of Loadbase:
1) There is no good explanation of how to interpolate the ballistic coefficient and drag coefficient in this software--so you have to diddle with it to get the results that match real life.
2) The model slightly understates the effects of winds upon elevation (yes elevation) inputs at longer ranges.
3) The shooting solution defaults to 100Y whenever you change screens--kind of annoying when you have shifting conditions.
Strengths of Loadbase:
1) Its still more accurate than anything else I have tried.
2) Customization
3) The "onboard" features of the PDA version are pretty extensive compared to other offerings. I never use my PC-based version because the PDA does what I need.
You'll still want to keep an accurate logbook. Nothing beats a good log when shooting across different conditions.
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">By manipulating the drag coefficient (off of the library numbers) in Loadbase, I found that I could manipulate my drop tables to match what I saw at the range.</div></div>
There's nothing unique to that program about that. In fact, you not only <span style="font-weight: bold">can</span> do that with any ballistic program, but most of the time will have to.
In my experience, the best results will come from getting the program output to match the field data at the long range you intend to shoot.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">By manipulating the drag coefficient (off of the library numbers) in Loadbase, I found that I could manipulate my drop tables to match what I saw at the range.</div></div>
There's nothing unique to that program about that. In fact, you not only <span style="font-weight: bold">can</span> do that with any ballistic program, but most of the time will have to.
In my experience, the best results will come from getting the program output to match the field data at the long range you intend to shoot.
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">By manipulating the drag coefficient (off of the library numbers) in Loadbase, I found that I could manipulate my drop tables to match what I saw at the range.</div></div>
There's nothing unique to that program about that. In fact, you not only <span style="font-weight: bold">can</span> do that with any ballistic program, but most of the time will have to.
In my experience, the best results will come from getting the program output to match the field data at the long range you intend to shoot.
</div></div>
Lindy,
You are correct. To get the most out of any ballistic program is to use real range data and tweak your ballistic program to match. This can be done a number of ways.
With the LB 2.0 the drag coefficient is the same as Dr Pejsa's retard coefficient in his program. Small changes of even a few feet per second in your velocity inputs can make large changes in the drag coefficient. However these changes (large or small) have only small changes your ballistic table output. But changing the drag coefficient and velocities can help tweak your data.
With ballistic programs that use CD (Coefficient Drag) models, tweaking the bullets corrected CD BC in conjunction with small velocity changes and even scope height can get your ballistic program to match your actual range data.
I like to get my 100 and 1000 yard range data to match and then I make small changes to the velocity, BC or scope height to bring my intermediate ranges. It’s all in understanding how everything works together.
Hope it helps
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">By manipulating the drag coefficient (off of the library numbers) in Loadbase, I found that I could manipulate my drop tables to match what I saw at the range.</div></div>
There's nothing unique to that program about that. In fact, you not only <span style="font-weight: bold">can</span> do that with any ballistic program, but most of the time will have to.
In my experience, the best results will come from getting the program output to match the field data at the long range you intend to shoot.
</div></div>
Lindy,
You are correct. To get the most out of any ballistic program is to use real range data and tweak your ballistic program to match. This can be done a number of ways.
With the LB 2.0 the drag coefficient is the same as Dr Pejsa's retard coefficient in his program. Small changes of even a few feet per second in your velocity inputs can make large changes in the drag coefficient. However these changes (large or small) have only small changes your ballistic table output. But changing the drag coefficient and velocities can help tweak your data.
With ballistic programs that use CD (Coefficient Drag) models, tweaking the bullets corrected CD BC in conjunction with small velocity changes and even scope height can get your ballistic program to match your actual range data.
I like to get my 100 and 1000 yard range data to match and then I make small changes to the velocity, BC or scope height to bring my intermediate ranges. It’s all in understanding how everything works together.
Hope it helps
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
Does anyone know which program offers the ability to account for multiple different wind zones,I know I have seen one but cannot remember which it was -chey tac possibly
Does anyone know which program offers the ability to account for multiple different wind zones,I know I have seen one but cannot remember which it was -chey tac possibly
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
ch'e,
It looks like FFS gives you the ability to enter multiple wind zones. It lists as one of the features on their site:
http://www.precisionworkbench.com/field.html
Horus AtragMX will do it too:
http://www.horusvision.com/atragmx.php
does anyone know of a pc based program that has the same capability?
ch'e,
It looks like FFS gives you the ability to enter multiple wind zones. It lists as one of the features on their site:
http://www.precisionworkbench.com/field.html
Horus AtragMX will do it too:
http://www.horusvision.com/atragmx.php
does anyone know of a pc based program that has the same capability?
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
Not to throw cold water on this multiple winds zones topic but let's be honest. Trying to calculate multiple wind zones (accurately) is like trying to accurately calculate spin drift. If at a fixed range with wind flags spaced every fifty yards or so out to a grand might get you in general vicinity but that’s it. It’s only giving you ground level wind velocities.
Unfortunately, shooting long distances to a grand and beyond your bullet travels much higher than ground level. Those changes may be small if you’re shooting on relatively level ranges. The problem compounds itself 100 fold when you’re shooting long distances in elevated areas such as mountains and canyons. There is no way to accurately measure or predict the wind directions and velocities between mountain ridges and over canyons. This is precisely the same reason you can’t accurately measure spin drift.
Wish I had an easy answer for this other than doing your best to dope the wind and see where your first round hits.
Not to throw cold water on this multiple winds zones topic but let's be honest. Trying to calculate multiple wind zones (accurately) is like trying to accurately calculate spin drift. If at a fixed range with wind flags spaced every fifty yards or so out to a grand might get you in general vicinity but that’s it. It’s only giving you ground level wind velocities.
Unfortunately, shooting long distances to a grand and beyond your bullet travels much higher than ground level. Those changes may be small if you’re shooting on relatively level ranges. The problem compounds itself 100 fold when you’re shooting long distances in elevated areas such as mountains and canyons. There is no way to accurately measure or predict the wind directions and velocities between mountain ridges and over canyons. This is precisely the same reason you can’t accurately measure spin drift.
Wish I had an easy answer for this other than doing your best to dope the wind and see where your first round hits.
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
I use BalCalc on my windos mobile phone, the newest version auto gathers general weather for a given zip, suits my needs. not as fancy as others though.
I use BalCalc on my windos mobile phone, the newest version auto gathers general weather for a given zip, suits my needs. not as fancy as others though.
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I use BalCalc on my windos mobile phone, the newest version auto gathers general weather for a given zip, suits my needs. not as fancy as others though.</div></div>
She ain't perty but she gets the job done.
http://ballcalc.sourceforge.net
p.s. I wrote this program!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I use BalCalc on my windos mobile phone, the newest version auto gathers general weather for a given zip, suits my needs. not as fancy as others though.</div></div>
She ain't perty but she gets the job done.
http://ballcalc.sourceforge.net
p.s. I wrote this program!
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jeff in TX</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not to throw cold water on this multiple winds zones topic but let's be honest. Trying to calculate multiple wind zones (accurately) is like trying to accurately calculate spin drift. If at a fixed range with wind flags spaced every fifty yards or so out to a grand might get you in general vicinity but that’s it. It’s only giving you ground level wind velocities.
Unfortunately, shooting long distances to a grand and beyond your bullet travels much higher than ground level. Those changes may be small if you’re shooting on relatively level ranges. The problem compounds itself 100 fold when you’re shooting long distances in elevated areas such as mountains and canyons. There is no way to accurately measure or predict the wind directions and velocities between mountain ridges and over canyons. This is precisely the same reason you can’t accurately measure spin drift.
Wish I had an easy answer for this other than doing your best to dope the wind and see where your first round hits.
</div></div>
Jeff, I agree with you. Wind drift will never be an exact, whether you have a single or multiple wind zone.
To me is just a tool that is nice to have and that can help me with my wind calcs based strictly on the accuracy of my estimation in certain situations. I'm thankful to have it and willing to use it. To each his owen, many will opt for not using it and is just their loss and my gain.
Wind drift will always be a calculation based on you visual estimation. The better you estimation, the closer your
calculations.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jeff in TX</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not to throw cold water on this multiple winds zones topic but let's be honest. Trying to calculate multiple wind zones (accurately) is like trying to accurately calculate spin drift. If at a fixed range with wind flags spaced every fifty yards or so out to a grand might get you in general vicinity but that’s it. It’s only giving you ground level wind velocities.
Unfortunately, shooting long distances to a grand and beyond your bullet travels much higher than ground level. Those changes may be small if you’re shooting on relatively level ranges. The problem compounds itself 100 fold when you’re shooting long distances in elevated areas such as mountains and canyons. There is no way to accurately measure or predict the wind directions and velocities between mountain ridges and over canyons. This is precisely the same reason you can’t accurately measure spin drift.
Wish I had an easy answer for this other than doing your best to dope the wind and see where your first round hits.
</div></div>
Jeff, I agree with you. Wind drift will never be an exact, whether you have a single or multiple wind zone.
To me is just a tool that is nice to have and that can help me with my wind calcs based strictly on the accuracy of my estimation in certain situations. I'm thankful to have it and willing to use it. To each his owen, many will opt for not using it and is just their loss and my gain.
Wind drift will always be a calculation based on you visual estimation. The better you estimation, the closer your
calculations.
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
Actually, if you have a program which does multiple wind-zones, there is a good use for it.
Use it to explore the notion that wind in some region of the shot trajectory is more important than another, and by how much.
The answers may surprise you.
A lot of what people believe about how the wind affects bullet trajectories is based upon misconceptions having no basis in fact.
I have programs which do that calculation, and that's the only use for it I've made. In the field, I can't estimate the wind well enough to make any use of it, and I suspect no one else can, either.
It's a great experimental tool, though. Put a 10 mph full-value crosswind in, and move it around so that it only affects a 100-yard segment of a 1000 yard shot at a time. Do that over the entire trajectory of that shot.
Reference material:
Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting
Effects of Wind - Sierra Exterior Ballistics
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is a common misconception among shooters that a wind “blows” a bullet off its course as it travels downrange. It is very important to realize that a wind does not “blow” a spin-stabilized bullet off its course. Rather, because of its spin stabilization a bullet turns to follow the wind if the wind direction is perpendicular to the line of sight between the firing point and the target.</div></div>
Turning of a Bullet to Follow the Wind
Lots of good material accessible on Sierra's Exterior Ballistics Site:
Sierra Exterior Ballistics Index
Actually, if you have a program which does multiple wind-zones, there is a good use for it.
Use it to explore the notion that wind in some region of the shot trajectory is more important than another, and by how much.
The answers may surprise you.
A lot of what people believe about how the wind affects bullet trajectories is based upon misconceptions having no basis in fact.
I have programs which do that calculation, and that's the only use for it I've made. In the field, I can't estimate the wind well enough to make any use of it, and I suspect no one else can, either.
It's a great experimental tool, though. Put a 10 mph full-value crosswind in, and move it around so that it only affects a 100-yard segment of a 1000 yard shot at a time. Do that over the entire trajectory of that shot.
Reference material:
Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting
Effects of Wind - Sierra Exterior Ballistics
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is a common misconception among shooters that a wind “blows” a bullet off its course as it travels downrange. It is very important to realize that a wind does not “blow” a spin-stabilized bullet off its course. Rather, because of its spin stabilization a bullet turns to follow the wind if the wind direction is perpendicular to the line of sight between the firing point and the target.</div></div>
Turning of a Bullet to Follow the Wind
Lots of good material accessible on Sierra's Exterior Ballistics Site:
Sierra Exterior Ballistics Index
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
Has always amazed me when people try to play with other people's
minds. Incredible!
" ...It is very important to realize that a wind does not “blow” a spin-stabilized bullet off its course. Rather, because of its spin stabilization a bullet turns to follow the wind... "
Sierra knows their bussiness but from time to time they also love playing with words. The bullet behaves that way
because of the wind blowing it, it's forced to act in that manner. The wind is responsible not the bullet!
Has always amazed me when people try to play with other people's
minds. Incredible!
" ...It is very important to realize that a wind does not “blow” a spin-stabilized bullet off its course. Rather, because of its spin stabilization a bullet turns to follow the wind... "
Sierra knows their bussiness but from time to time they also love playing with words. The bullet behaves that way
because of the wind blowing it, it's forced to act in that manner. The wind is responsible not the bullet!
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
The point which Sierra was making, and others have made as well, is that some people believe that the wind blows on the side of the bullet, and imparts to the bullet a lateral velocity which continues downrange, even past the point where the wind may no longer be blowing in a cross-range direction.
That turns out not to be the case. The downwind drift is caused by the turning of the bullet to follow the crosswind.
Bryan Litz also makes that point very nicely in Chapter 5 of his book.
The point which Sierra was making, and others have made as well, is that some people believe that the wind blows on the side of the bullet, and imparts to the bullet a lateral velocity which continues downrange, even past the point where the wind may no longer be blowing in a cross-range direction.
That turns out not to be the case. The downwind drift is caused by the turning of the bullet to follow the crosswind.
Bryan Litz also makes that point very nicely in Chapter 5 of his book.
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cruze5</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ffs (http://www.precisionworkbench.com/)
exbal.
in that order </div></div>
which version of the FFS would you recommend? Of course, the Delta IV is quite pricy, but has more options.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cruze5</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ffs (http://www.precisionworkbench.com/)
exbal.
in that order </div></div>
which version of the FFS would you recommend? Of course, the Delta IV is quite pricy, but has more options.
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
Lindy, I got your meaning!
Man that's a long chapter. I like, and made it easy to understand the graphic on page 84.
On that page Mr. Litz says: <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The most common myth about how wind deflects a bullet is that: the wind blows on the side of the bullet, like a balloon, and pushes it off course. This description of wind deflection is simple and intuitive, but very wrong. </div></div>
He does acknowledges the wind Vector which is the force acting upon the bullet that blows it off course and which is the reason we have to compensate in order to be able to hit the target. It is indeed not blown away the way the most of us would have thought of but it is blown away.
It's good to notice the stabilized bullet points towards the oncoming airflow and not the crosswind.
Very interesting!!!
Lindy, I got your meaning!
Man that's a long chapter. I like, and made it easy to understand the graphic on page 84.
On that page Mr. Litz says: <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The most common myth about how wind deflects a bullet is that: the wind blows on the side of the bullet, like a balloon, and pushes it off course. This description of wind deflection is simple and intuitive, but very wrong. </div></div>
He does acknowledges the wind Vector which is the force acting upon the bullet that blows it off course and which is the reason we have to compensate in order to be able to hit the target. It is indeed not blown away the way the most of us would have thought of but it is blown away.
It's good to notice the stabilized bullet points towards the oncoming airflow and not the crosswind.
Very interesting!!!
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Regarding the accuracy of ballistics programs, nothing beats JBM. It doesn't have all the graphic displays and libraries of the high dollar programs, but it runs a proper numeric solution, and returns answers that are truly as accurate as the inputs. I always recommend JBM, using BC's referenced to a proper standard (G7 for long range bullets) as the standard to compare the accuracy of any ballistics program.</div></div>
JBM has worked well for me and while it won't benefit anyone on any other mobile platform if you have an iPhone or Touch, Ballistic now has the option to use the JBM engine. Before, I found I had to lower BCs in Ballistic, e.g. from G7 .228 to .226 to get it to agree with JBM. (I discovered this when I was using 10-yard increments out to a 1000 once and noticed that Ballistic was giving the same results just 10 or 20 yards past JBM, as if the equation simply resulted in a different stepping).
Being a professional UI designer, neither is perfect in that respect. There are, however, some things I prefer in the Ballistic interface. Mainly, that it allows you to save favorites and reload them later. JBM only remembers the last data entered and that can be a problem if you're switching between different rifles with varying scope heights, muzzle velocities, etc.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Regarding the accuracy of ballistics programs, nothing beats JBM. It doesn't have all the graphic displays and libraries of the high dollar programs, but it runs a proper numeric solution, and returns answers that are truly as accurate as the inputs. I always recommend JBM, using BC's referenced to a proper standard (G7 for long range bullets) as the standard to compare the accuracy of any ballistics program.</div></div>
JBM has worked well for me and while it won't benefit anyone on any other mobile platform if you have an iPhone or Touch, Ballistic now has the option to use the JBM engine. Before, I found I had to lower BCs in Ballistic, e.g. from G7 .228 to .226 to get it to agree with JBM. (I discovered this when I was using 10-yard increments out to a 1000 once and noticed that Ballistic was giving the same results just 10 or 20 yards past JBM, as if the equation simply resulted in a different stepping).
Being a professional UI designer, neither is perfect in that respect. There are, however, some things I prefer in the Ballistic interface. Mainly, that it allows you to save favorites and reload them later. JBM only remembers the last data entered and that can be a problem if you're switching between different rifles with varying scope heights, muzzle velocities, etc.
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
if you have an Itouch for other purposes you cannot beat the $29.00 download
Bill
if you have an Itouch for other purposes you cannot beat the $29.00 download
Bill
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bill Stoffels</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if you have an Itouch for other purposes you cannot beat the $29.00 download
Bill </div></div>
Sure you can. With a $19.99 download of Ballistic FTE.
http://ballistic.zdziarski.com/
I have both and prefer Ballistic FTE overall. There are parts of the Knight's program I like, but FTE has a larger library, uses the JBM engine, and it cheaper to boot.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bill Stoffels</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if you have an Itouch for other purposes you cannot beat the $29.00 download
Bill </div></div>
Sure you can. With a $19.99 download of Ballistic FTE.
http://ballistic.zdziarski.com/
I have both and prefer Ballistic FTE overall. There are parts of the Knight's program I like, but FTE has a larger library, uses the JBM engine, and it cheaper to boot.
Re: What Ballistic Progam?
This is my page and some shooting tools i put together..
http://sites.google.com/site/freeballisticcalculator/
This is a free ballistic calculator for use with Windows Excel and any pocket PC / Windows CE that has Excel installed. "Black Berry" "Windows Mobil smart phones"
Provided you input the right data to start, this is one of the most accurate calculators i have used. Using this in a PDA has scored me 1 shot hits on Groundhogs out to 460 yards with light little 223 40gr Vmax with my flat top AR.
tested as accurate as bulletFlight and Balistic FTE for iphone
also, some printable targets i made up.
25y-100y-200y-300y-400y-1MOA grid printable TARGETS
more info on the page
This is my page and some shooting tools i put together..
http://sites.google.com/site/freeballisticcalculator/
This is a free ballistic calculator for use with Windows Excel and any pocket PC / Windows CE that has Excel installed. "Black Berry" "Windows Mobil smart phones"
Provided you input the right data to start, this is one of the most accurate calculators i have used. Using this in a PDA has scored me 1 shot hits on Groundhogs out to 460 yards with light little 223 40gr Vmax with my flat top AR.
tested as accurate as bulletFlight and Balistic FTE for iphone
also, some printable targets i made up.
25y-100y-200y-300y-400y-1MOA grid printable TARGETS
more info on the page
Similar threads
- Sticky
