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
Cronograph's ??
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="Pdvdh" data-source="post: 782262" data-attributes="member: 4191"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>This <u>first link</u> is authored by Bryan Litz:</p><p><a href="http://www.appliedballisticsllc.com/index_files/AccurateSpecificationsofBallisticCoefficients.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.appliedballisticsllc.com/index_files/AccurateSpecificationsofBallisticCoefficients.pdf</a></p><p></p><p>This <u>second link</u> is an article authored by Alex Halloran, Colton Huntsman, Chad Demers, and Michael Courtney: <a href="http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA555975" target="_blank">http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA555975</a></p><p></p><p>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:</p><p></p><p>"<em>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. </em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em><strong>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.</strong> 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.</em>"</p><p></p><p>According to Courtney, BC values determined after carefully performed field measurements conducted by the two independent efforts <strong>routinely differed by up to 20%</strong>.</p><p></p><p>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 <u>will result in errant muzzle velocities, if the BC values are incorrect</u>. 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.</p><p></p><p><u><strong>The value of chronographed MVs</strong></u>: 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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p><strong><u>PS</u></strong>: 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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Pdvdh, post: 782262, member: 4191"] 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 [U]first link[/U] is authored by Bryan Litz: [url]http://www.appliedballisticsllc.com/index_files/AccurateSpecificationsofBallisticCoefficients.pdf[/url] This [U]second link[/U] is an article authored by Alex Halloran, Colton Huntsman, Chad Demers, and Michael Courtney: [url]http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA555975[/url] 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: "[I]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. [B]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.[/B] 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.[/I]" According to Courtney, BC values determined after carefully performed field measurements conducted by the two independent efforts [B]routinely differed by up to 20%[/B]. 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 [U]will result in errant muzzle velocities, if the BC values are incorrect[/U]. 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. [U][B]The value of chronographed MVs[/B][/U]: 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. [B][U]PS[/U][/B]: 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Cronograph's ??
Top