<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR> What is the scope mounting height and altitude you're using <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Scope height: 2". Altitude: I ignore the altitude because I have the actual field atmospheric pressure. My program will use altitude only as a means to approximate the actual pressure.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR> What is the bullet dropping at 400-500-600-700 yards too <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The results from my program from 200 yds to 1000 yds are correct. The first time I used the program's output was in a tactical match which involves shooting from 200, 300, 500, 600, 800, 900 and 1000 yds. At the completion of the match (36 total rounds), the total vertical dispersion of the 36 rounds was 10 inches - and at each station I used exactly what the program output. This is very satisfactory performance as far as I am concerned.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR> I wonder why your program predicts such a different number than "all" the others? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I wouldn't know, except that I don't believe that any of the programs you mentioned use Arthur Pejsa's work. I can say that generally the use of a drag function similar to Meyevski-Ingalls (essentially the G1 model) will yield more optimistic results (as shown on the above graph) than what a shooter will see on the range. There are a number of ways to deal with this, such as calculating differing BCs for different speed regimes. This is how Sierra deals with the problem. Pejsa has dealt with the problem by using a deceleration constant that can be found for each bullet.