Long Range Hunting Online Magazine


Go Back   Long Range Hunting Online Magazine > Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment > Reloading

Reloading Techniques For Reloading


Reply

On Paper Vs Ballistic Program

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #29  
Old 09-11-2007, 04:01 PM
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: McKinney TX
Posts: 403
Shawn,

I can do amazing things with a ballistic program as I understand how they work and how to get the programs results to match my actual shooting data. What I can't do is reverse the process and get my actual shooting data to match my program data and thatís what youíre trying to do. It wonít work.

I havenít played with the chrony ballistic program so I canít offer an opinion on how good or bad it is.

You need to shoot and record your actual POA to POI at 100 yard increments out to 300 yards. Beyond 300 yards, 50 yard increments work better than 100 yard increments. Again record your actual POA to POI. Donít touch your scope turrets. Just record how much drop you actually have at each yardage.

Now if youíre a range a click guy like I am and realizing scope turrets are seldom exact, now figure out how many clicks your scope takes to get you to each 100 yard or 50 yard increment.

This way you have a range card to take hunting. Now you can take that data and work it into a ballistic program to get it to match your actual range data. Out to 350 yards even if you change altitude and temperature by a lot your actual field results wonít be that far off.

Hope it helps
__________________
Jeff

Mathew 5:16

Distance is not an issue, but the wind will make it interesting!
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-12-2007, 09:36 AM
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA
Posts: 131
The problem I see with most of the "actual vs. predicted values" issue, is that it's never done with the appropiate parameters that must be considered, especially when it comes to long range.

Every artilleryman knows that parameters such as the dispersion of the gun must be included, as well as the inherent errors of the sight, the ammo, the input data, etc.

So I'm amazed when some people just compare actual vs field results and they don't correlate the way the expect it to do.

Not my intention to open a flamed debate, but almost any experiences as conducted by an individual, that does not have the right measurement equipment, the dispersion values, the shooter's errors etc are of almost no scientific value.

Without a proper statistical model and correct inputs, under carefully controlled conditions, what we have are just wild guesses.

And of course, to expect a great match without knowing how to setup a properly cared for experiment is at least not fair to any model, and as can be figured out, most especially at long range.

In short, if any program is within, say one MOA at medium to long ranges, without knowing nothing about the inherent errors that are customarily unknown to the shooter ( I mean quantified ) then we are in the presence of a good prediction.
__________________
regards, Gus

LoadBase© Desktop & Mobile editions - the ballistics/reloading software solution
http://www.patagoniaballistics.com
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 09-12-2007, 12:02 PM
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: McKinney TX
Posts: 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustavo View Post
The problem I see with most of the "actual vs. predicted values" issue, is that it's never done with the appropiate parameters that must be considered, especially when it comes to long range.

Every artilleryman knows that parameters such as the dispersion of the gun must be included, as well as the inherent errors of the sight, the ammo, the input data, etc.

So I'm amazed when some people just compare actual vs field results and they don't correlate the way the expect it to do.

Not my intention to open a flamed debate, but almost any experiences as conducted by an individual, that does not have the right measurement equipment, the dispersion values, the shooter's errors etc are of almost no scientific value.

Without a proper statistical model and correct inputs, under carefully controlled conditions, what we have are just wild guesses.

And of course, to expect a great match without knowing how to setup a properly cared for experiment is at least not fair to any model, and as can be figured out, most especially at long range.

In short, if any program is within, say one MOA at medium to long ranges, without knowing nothing about the inherent errors that are customarily unknown to the shooter ( I mean quantified ) then we are in the presence of a good prediction.
Gus,

Amen brother well said!
__________________
Jeff

Mathew 5:16

Distance is not an issue, but the wind will make it interesting!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads for: On Paper Vs Ballistic Program
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ballistic program justgoharder Long Range Hunting & Shooting 6 11-26-2011 10:00 AM
Ballistic Program hawkshaw59 Rifles, Bullets, Barrels and Ballistics 3 05-22-2007 12:33 PM
Ballistic Program Bear Rifles, Bullets, Barrels and Ballistics 3 07-14-2003 04:58 PM
Ballistic Program Nighthawk Long Range Hunting & Shooting 10 04-30-2003 03:08 AM
Ballistic program Magnumdude Rifles, Bullets, Barrels and Ballistics 7 04-28-2003 06:12 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Management Powered by vBadvanced CMPS
All content ©2010-2014 Long Range Hunting, LLC