Long Range Hunting Online Magazine

Go Back   Long Range Hunting Online Magazine > Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment > Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics

Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics Applied Ballistics


Ballistics beyond 2000 yds : do we need/trust them?

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 01-29-2007, 09:33 PM
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: El Reno, OK
Posts: 1,922
Re: Ballistics beyond 2000 yds : do we need/trust them?

As I said before, maybe some member has collected data checked versus his favorite program and can shed some light on this matter...after all this is a LRH forum!

[/ QUOTE ]

Give Lerch and I a couple of months and we'll have some data for you [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]!!
Reply With Quote

Unread 01-29-2007, 09:53 PM
Gold Member
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 923
Re: Ballistics beyond 2000 yds : do we need/trust them?

Question: Is it possible that the purple primer with the purple powder combination gives 3000 f/sec mv at very low chamber pressures, and the red primer with the red powder combination would give 3000 f/sec mv at very high chamber pressures and because of the extremes dynamics inside the chamber the bullet gets to be treated differently once it's in motion to the point that its flying ability changes enough to change the BC??? Is it possible? Even though the mv is still the same, there would be a different beast growling inside the chamber. Could that change our BC? Is it possible?

[/ QUOTE ]

A more realistic answer is suppose you had a 300 Win Mag and were shooting 190 SMK's out of it.

You could use about 65gr of H-4350SC for 2950fps
Or you could use about 73 grains of H-4831 for the same 2950.

The bullets would be the same when they come out of the barrel. Primers would not make a difference. To the question of extremely high pressures (80k+psia), it is speculation, because at that point, you would be hammering the bolt open, and the case heads would start to flow.

Here, kitty kitty kitty.

LRH member #23
Reply With Quote
Unread 01-29-2007, 10:26 PM
Bronze Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Land of the hand
Posts: 62
Re: Ballistics beyond 2000 yds : do we need/trust them?

If I may interject, Catshooter I like and respect the majority of your posts. I do feel, however, Michael's intentions and your interpretations are slightly off-skewed. I don't feel, using the same barrel, that switching powder/primers yet arriving at the same muzzle velocity will yield different BCs.
That said, I don't think that's what Michael meant though, I believe he meant changing those components for an "ever so slight" muzzle velocity change would alter your ballistics. Please do not nitpick the paragraph apart and manhunt for errors. His general idea was SPOT ON and well delivered. Different barrels have different land engagements on the bullet, different frictions and of course sometimes slightly different twist rates (ie, 1 in 10 is not ALWAYS 1 in 10... sometimes 1 in 10.15"...) I imagine that could all make a difference at such a distance, being that they would change the outside structure of the bullet.
lol, it's late, and I forgot where I was going now.
I do agree with whoever said it, prolly Michael, that ballistics programs need to be calibrated for individuals once you get "out there". To 600 yards everything is close enough, after that to be spot on it will usually involve a little tweaking.

For what it's worth, I HATE cool-aid. PowerAid, gotta have the electrolytes [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]
~Pray to God...but swim toward shore~
Reply With Quote
Unread 01-29-2007, 11:04 PM
Silver Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 439
Re: Ballistics beyond 2000 yds : do we need/trust them?

What's wrong with Catshooter's pointing out the inaccuracy of someone statement? Can someone do that here without being vilified?. I believed if you mispook or made an error in your statement, you should welcome anyone who call you or questioned you on it. We're here to learn among our selves.
To achieve the maximum possible accuracy, all variables must be remove or at least minimize.
Reply With Quote
Unread 01-29-2007, 11:39 PM
Platinum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: on the rifle range in Utah
Posts: 2,704
Re: Ballistics beyond 2000 yds : do we need/trust them?

Sure you can point out something you feel you need to. You just don't need to do it in bad tone. I think the two guys just misunderstood each other is all so no need to "DUHH" anyone, ever! . It's all about free communication but if some feel inhibited to speak for fear of being "duhhed" than people won't share anything at all.
Find it
Range it
Click it
Pull it
Dump it

If it's not far, it's boring.
Reply With Quote
Unread 01-29-2007, 11:55 PM
Silver Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA
Posts: 131
Re: Ballistics beyond 2000 yds : do we need/trust them?

Here follows an extract that I took from Lutz Moller site

"As to why I post G1 BCs over giving the actual drag data. The general customer that we sell to has no capacity to interpret actual drag data. That fact is most experienced ballisticians intrepret drag data incorrectly. We give the general customer a tool that can be used with the popularly available computer programs. When used this way it is within the range of errors that the computer programs introduce. Most of them do not accurately adjust for air pressure ( they ask for elevation or altitude), they do not accurate adjust for temperature, they do not accurately adjust for ammo temperature, they do not have the user accurately input true muzzle velocity, and many others. If the program does not do these things it is meaningless to give true drag data.

The truth is it is a tool meant for a particular customer. This customer comprises 98% of the civilian market.

I do have the correct data that is very accurate, but trying to teach a customer how to use it in anything but a setup software program for the particular bullet and cartridge they are shooting is a mistake. We are marketing the latter to sophisticated long range military shooters now. We will be coming out with this software and hardware for the civilian market very soon.

Right now I am not interested in advancing the art of small arms ballistic trajectory calculating. I passed a number of years ago. I am interested in giving the shooter tools that will allow him to do it for himself. Do you think the average shooter can manipulate a 6 DOF formula for his 7mm? I don't. The computers and software will give them the tools they can use.

By the way, 6 DOF formulas would not be accurate enough for the tank gunners if their targets where at such a distance that the projectiles where approaching transonic. Trust me on this. With a MV of 4850 fps and the tremendous sectional density of the dart there is not much elevation required. Also, because the dart is fin stabilized the overspin yaw drag never significantly materializes.


to me it's very enlightening and most interesting, specially on his points of view over the G1 model.
regards, Gus

LoadBaseŠ Desktop & Mobile editions - the ballistics/reloading software solution
Reply With Quote
Unread 01-29-2007, 11:58 PM
Platinum Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The rifle range, or archery range or behind the computer in Alaska
Posts: 3,740
Re: Ballistics beyond 2000 yds : do we need/trust them?

I believed if you mispook or made an error in your statement, you should welcome anyone who call you or questioned you on it. We're here to learn among our selves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. However, this indavidual has repeatedly nit picked various things I have stated and taken them way out of context and continualy dissrespects me. I also welcome all comments or opinions, theroies also, in reply to anything I might say. My problem here is to have something taken out of context, then I explain the context in which it was meant, and somehow facts are still BS.

Quoted by CS,

(and need a spell checker).

[/ QUOTE ]

That very comment shows me that there is more to this than just ballistic coeffiecents, and what is reality and BS. To me, it is more about someone who wants to argue. It is more like an argument or a ******* contest. That is what I have a problem with. I dont preach what is not fact. I have expressed theroies here and have been identified as such, and they are just that.

I want you to explain how the primer and powder change the BC? It is a simple question.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the context in which you and you alone are taking it, I can't explain it, because as has been beaten to death already, THAT IS NOT WHAT I MEANT. In the context it was intended, if all is equal and 2 scenarios are IDENTICAL the BC will be the same. If not all is equal, the BC will not be the same. The context of the statment was NOT intended to try and make anybody believe that using the same barrel using the SAME velocity with differing primers and powders that the BC would change. Obviously, if you read my statment again, the context is in referance to my equipment and someone elses equipment, which is totally different. As far as the same barrel with different powders and primers at the same velocity as to whether or not the BC changes, that is somthing that I have not experimentd with and have no first hand knowledge of. It might or it might not. But in any event, unless you have first hand knowledge yourself, even if you took it the wrong way in your interpretation, you shouldnt say it is BS untill you get out there and try it, your argument is as dead as if I said it was so and had no first hand knowledge myself. I know what sounds reasonable or seems reasonable, but bullets dont care what we think. BC's ARE NOT as clear cut as we would like them to be. That is why we have some here that shoot 600 and some that shoot 2500 yards. No offense to those that hang out at the 600 yard line, I hang out there more than 1000.

Again, we are talking about this in light of shooting 2000+ yards. Can we take a 175 SMK and shoot them at milspec velocities with a milspec rifle using the "general" BC and expect to hit where we want at 600-1000 yards provided we have a dead on zero? The answer is yes, within a few inches. Almost every time. Why? Because with all of that research the military has done with the 175 and 24" 308 barrels with 11.25 twists at 2550 FPS they have come up with a 'general BC', and the BC isnt going to change enough from 1 rifle to the next to make much of a differance out to 1K PROVIDED each rifle is 24" with 11.25x twists used with similar velocities. Now shoot that same bullet in a 10 twist at 300 RUM velocities or a 13 twist at RUM velocities and YOU WILL HAVE A VASTLY DIFFERANT BC. Not maybe, not probably, but definatly.

If some guys are stuck on the idea that a bullet's BC is simply a function of diameter, length and form and nothing more, then someday, when they are lining up their sights on that big western once in a lifetime trophy at 1K and have put explicit trust in their software without real life tests and confirmation, they're going to miss it. When they do, those words will ring in their ear. Believe what you want, you cannot out smart or out shoot the laws of physics.
Long range shooting is a process that ends with a result. Once you start to focus on the result (how bad your last shot was, how big the group is going to be, what your buck will score, what your match score is, what place you are in...) then you loose the capacity to focus on the process.
Reply With Quote


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads for: Ballistics beyond 2000 yds : do we need/trust them?
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Trust Land roaddog1m Humor 210 04-05-2015 09:29 PM
Government Trust fariswm Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics 0 09-26-2010 02:28 PM
What's new in Trust Land? specweldtom Humor 3 07-18-2010 04:04 PM
Would you trust this item.... JOSE A. MARINE General Discussion 4 08-25-2008 08:44 PM
how far would you trust this rifle mr.big Long Range Hunting & Shooting 26 04-07-2007 05:31 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:15 AM.

Powered by vBulletin ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Management Powered by vBadvanced CMPS
All content ©2010-2015 Long Range Hunting, LLC