Trickymissfit
Well-Known Member
Len you could certainly help break us up with a new single shot rifle board (like Ruger #1's and 1885's).
By the way for all you weaklings, I'm going fishing in the rain and with temps that are about 38 degrees.
gary
Cronograph's ??
- Thread starter Greg Duerr
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Len you could certainly help break us up with a new single shot rifle board (like Ruger #1's and 1885's).
By the way for all you weaklings, I'm going fishing in the rain and with temps that are about 38 degrees.
gary
Did so, poor soul. Let me know if you need a lift off the low chair. Upwards that is.
pwrdbycotn
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2010
- Messages
- 589
I hate to interrupt the lively conversation here but I've been wondering if anyone has tried running one of the new magnetospeeds along with an oehler 35p? I have a 35p currently and I love it, but it's a PITA to set up and get right and when the wind is blowing the printer paper tends to get blown all over the place. I've been thinking about getting one of the magneto chronos and using it in conjuntion with the 35p. I know that the fps will be different, but the ES and SD should be the same. I think it would be interesting to see how close they were regarding these measurements. I've heard nothing but good things about the magnetos and I think if I eventually felt comfortable that the magnetospeed was accurate I would consider selling the 35p. Has anyone out there tried this?
Look @ link on #31 post!
No thanks, unlike you, I don't have very far to fall.
geargrinder
Well-Known Member
I live in Dayton and work in Carson. I have a Magnetospeed that you could use.
Like I said ...
geargrinder is definitely one of them good people.
It don't get no better than that!
gun)
geargrinder is definitely one of them good people.
It don't get no better than that!
gun)So as I understand it, you input BC values provided by Bryan Litz or some other source (perhaps the bullet manufacturer), and then proceed to input MV values into a ballistics program until you enter a MV that provides predicted bullet drops matching your measured drops at the distances you measured those bullet drops in the field. And this is working well for you. I'm not going to argue or disagree with your success using this method. This method could produce acceptable results, particularly if you hunt at the same elevation you field measured bullet drops down range.
However, here are links to two different articles. One authored by Bryan Litz. The second is authored by Michael Courtney, after Mr. Litz and Mr. Courtney conversed about the various reasons for the difference in bullet BC values the two were establishing for the same bullets; one based on their measurements of bullet speed and the other based on measurements of bullet time in flight.
This first link is authored by Bryan Litz:
http://www.appliedballisticsllc.com/index_files/AccurateSpecificationsofBallisticCoefficients.pdf
This second link is an article authored by Alex Halloran, Colton Huntsman, Chad Demers, and Michael Courtney: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA555975
Upon additional field testing in the effort to determine the cause or causes for the differences in bullet BC measurements resulting from their independent testing, here are some conclusionary statements from the Courtney report:
"Further work will be necessary to determine the cause of BC variations between measurements conducted by Litz and other independent measurements. We suspect some other causal factor related to lot-to-lot bullet variations or something related to firing from different rifles. There is also the possibility of a larger than estimated error in the acoustic method or the dual chronograph method.
It seems that different lot numbers and different rifles can routinely produce as much as 20% differences in BC when firing the same make and model of bullet. This suggests that predictions of ballistics programs are no more than a starting point for long-range shooting, and that predictions might be much more accurate if a BC is determined for a particular bullet in a particular rifle."
According to Courtney, BC values determined after carefully performed field measurements conducted by the two independent efforts routinely differed by up to 20%.
My conclusion: Inputting a published bullet BC value into a ballistics program and then entering MVs until the ballistic program provides reasonably correct predicted bullet drops, in the effort to establish the MV of the bullet fired from your rifle will result in errant muzzle velocities, if the BC values are incorrect. Granted, some value for MV input into a ballistic program will produce predicted drops to match those measured in the field. But if the BC value is incorrect, so will the MV be incorrect. You'll have arrived at a some combination of errant BC and MV that matches your measured drops at the environmental conditions that were entered into the ballistics program. Predicted drops using those errant values of BC and MV could provide reasonable close-to-correct predicted drops provided the environmental conditions of station pressure and temperature are similar to the enrironmental conditions at the locations and time the bullet drops were measured. Under significantly differing environmental conditions, predicted drops will be in error, because the MV and BC values aren't correct.
The value of chronographed MVs: When I measure and enter correct MV into a ballistics program, I remove one of the two unknowns being entered into the ballistics program. Having only one unknown, the ballistics program can now be used to accurately determine the last unknown - in our scenario - bullet BC. MV has now been measured and is a known value. The BC entered into the ballistics program that now yields predicted drops that match the bullet drops measured in the field will be a fairly accurate bullet BC for that bullet fired out of my rifle.
Less uncertainty. Better predicted drops at all differing environmental conditions of variable elevations, temperatures, and wind conditions, because the input values for MV and BC are now 'more' correct.
PS: Both Litz and Courtney occasionally post on this Forum. Either should feel free to comment, add to, clarify, or correct anything within this Post. They are both qualified to correct any misinformation, misinterpretation, or error(s) on my part. The information in the links I provided could also now be superseded by more current studies and conclusions. The Courtney Research Report is dated February 1, 2012.
Last edited:
The biggest single reason I would not purchase a bullet measuring device that's fastened to the rifle barrel, is that I expect it would affect both bullet point of impact, and accuracy; which would be different than shooting the same bullet/load without that device being fastened to the end of the barrel. This means I couldn't determine the accuracy potential of any load out of my rifle with the device fastened to the end of the barrel, and I couldn't measure MV and determine ES, and SD at the same time I tested for accuracy. That's a major compromise for me. By measuring MV throughout my load development process, I can also calculate the extreme spread and the standard deviation in muzzle velocity. If the extreme spread and standard deviation in MV are too great, I reject that load even if it proves to be accurate at 100 or 300 yards, because at long yardages the load will produce excessive vertical stringing due to the variation in MV.
The second reason that precludes my purchase and use of a device fastened to the end of the muzzle, is I can only measure bullet velocity at the muzzle. I commonly measure the velocity of the bullet at distances down range, from 100 yards all the way out to 1000 yards.
If a guy is only interested in MV, and willing to forgo the ability to measure MV while also testing bullet accuracy on down-range targets, this device could be very convenient. I've never used it so I've got no idea as to the reliability, precision, or accuracy of this specific product. The reliability, accuracy, and precision could only be determined by using the device concurrent with an additional bullet velocity measuring device. You're aware of that, as you state your intention to test it along side your 35P until satisfied the new unit is accurate, or inaccurate.
Once again, FEENIX may not care about any of this, and if he doesn't, no one is forcing him or any other member to read it. I make this statement without regard to whether or not he's "one of them good people" referred to in his Post #63, or one of the other sorts of characters - whatever that might mean to Marshall FEENIX.
Last edited:
Marshall Mouth.
