Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Ballistics beyond 2000 yds : do we need/trust them?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Gustavo" data-source="post: 138970" data-attributes="member: 6"><p>Wow! I really don't feel well after what turned out to be a fight over two gentlemen! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif</p><p></p><p>I'm not trying to be diplomatic, but I respect both stands, of CS and Michael, and I highly respect their divergent positions and the way they still treat each other and most specially that none of them left the battlefield.</p><p></p><p>I do recognize in that attitude the trademark of true gentlemen. I mean it.</p><p></p><p>On the other hand, neither Michael nor CS owe me any apologies, we are just trying to make better ballistics and it's not easy sometimes.</p><p></p><p>For the record, I do both, the math modelling and the software coding, the databases design...well even the coffee!! And I hope to have my website up and running in short time. My background includes a BS in Computer Science, a BS in Operations Research, an MBA and I have the rank of LTCDR in the Argentine Navy (surface) and an "honorary" submarines diploma ( you know these underwater guys are very jealous /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif)</p><p></p><p>In the meantime I'm trying hard to verify as much as possible the results I'm obtaining with my software, since I do not only intend to market a good tool, but to help others and myself to obtain trusted values in the field.</p><p></p><p>Here we must open another point, and is related as our own design criteria and approach (both technical and practical) of what kind of use we want to expect from our ballistics tools, of which software is a most valuable one.</p><p></p><p>First of all, and as discussed previously I cannot agree more with the notion that for very long distances, the only way to go is with BCs and trajectory points collected for each system under carefully guarded conditons. Otherwise, we are guessing. The more I research this subject, the more I talk to knowledgeable people the more I can attest to this. And without doubt is an unfortunate situation we must cope with</p><p></p><p>But, my priority is what Micahel stated very well, to have a tool that predicts fairly well upon 2000 yards (and that IS A STRETCH by all means...) with changing conditions and parameters easily available for 90% of the shooters ( myself included ) that cannot verify ( or just don't want to ) every listed BC, etc, etc, but at the same time wants to have at hand a nice, and to be trusted, field "data chart" in order to make long range shots more than the old Kentucky shooters could afford.</p><p></p><p>But since I'm on a non-stop learning process, opted to open the topic. And for what I already read it's still open and going strong.</p><p></p><p>So it would be interesting for the interest of all us LRH to share experiences of predicted versus real-world data.</p><p></p><p>Please keep talking!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Gustavo, post: 138970, member: 6"] Wow! I really don't feel well after what turned out to be a fight over two gentlemen! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] I'm not trying to be diplomatic, but I respect both stands, of CS and Michael, and I highly respect their divergent positions and the way they still treat each other and most specially that none of them left the battlefield. I do recognize in that attitude the trademark of true gentlemen. I mean it. On the other hand, neither Michael nor CS owe me any apologies, we are just trying to make better ballistics and it's not easy sometimes. For the record, I do both, the math modelling and the software coding, the databases design...well even the coffee!! And I hope to have my website up and running in short time. My background includes a BS in Computer Science, a BS in Operations Research, an MBA and I have the rank of LTCDR in the Argentine Navy (surface) and an "honorary" submarines diploma ( you know these underwater guys are very jealous [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img][img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]) In the meantime I'm trying hard to verify as much as possible the results I'm obtaining with my software, since I do not only intend to market a good tool, but to help others and myself to obtain trusted values in the field. Here we must open another point, and is related as our own design criteria and approach (both technical and practical) of what kind of use we want to expect from our ballistics tools, of which software is a most valuable one. First of all, and as discussed previously I cannot agree more with the notion that for very long distances, the only way to go is with BCs and trajectory points collected for each system under carefully guarded conditons. Otherwise, we are guessing. The more I research this subject, the more I talk to knowledgeable people the more I can attest to this. And without doubt is an unfortunate situation we must cope with But, my priority is what Micahel stated very well, to have a tool that predicts fairly well upon 2000 yards (and that IS A STRETCH by all means...) with changing conditions and parameters easily available for 90% of the shooters ( myself included ) that cannot verify ( or just don't want to ) every listed BC, etc, etc, but at the same time wants to have at hand a nice, and to be trusted, field "data chart" in order to make long range shots more than the old Kentucky shooters could afford. But since I'm on a non-stop learning process, opted to open the topic. And for what I already read it's still open and going strong. So it would be interesting for the interest of all us LRH to share experiences of predicted versus real-world data. Please keep talking! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Ballistics beyond 2000 yds : do we need/trust them?
Top