Question for you Exbal folks...

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by 41mag, Mar 12, 2006.

  1. 41mag

    41mag Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    752
    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2005
    I have the Exbal program on my pc as well as a hand held unit. I was sitting here with little else to do the other day and decided to practice with is some. So since I couldn't go shoot, I figured the closest thing was a simulation. So I pulled up this site and went to it.
    Long Range Shooting Simulation

    Well after reading through all of the stuff on the site, I sighted in and started. The first round, I pulled up the conditions, and everything else, plugged it in to my program, found the setting and dialed it in and missed completely. No problem I thought, this is all pretty new to me anyway so I kept on. Well after about 20 minutes of screwing with it, I decided to pull up the calculator and have a go at it that way. Same results. Not even close to the intended targets.

    So, if some of you have a little spare time on your hands and feel up to explaining to me, what I might be doing wrong, or where the differences lie in the two programs I would definately appreciate it. Maybe I am just brain dead on this like I was to algebra. Course this didn't slow me down one bit when I was pipefitting. Laying out the angles, using the sines, cosines, tangents, and such was a non issue.

    This said, in "real world" shooting, I have used the handheld several times to get the results I needed. However, I am looing for answers on why I couldn't get things right on the other program.

    Thanks
     
  2. Ballistic64

    Ballistic64 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    669
    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2004
    Incorrect range estimation? Judging long range to the nearest 1/10 Mil isnt easy.I ordered the disc for that program and played with it quite a bit but never tried to test it against Exbal.I was more interested in learning the Mil ranging system,but ultimately decided to go with an MOA reticle.I'll have to dig it out and see if Exbal will match it.
     

  3. Ballistic64

    Ballistic64 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    669
    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2004
    One other thing to remember with that program ,is that the scope is calibrated at 10 power for ranging.
     
  4. Michael Eichele

    Michael Eichele Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,829
    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Theyre calcs are based on a 100 yard zero setting.
     
  5. royinidaho

    royinidaho Writers Guild

    Messages:
    8,853
    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Hey, that was fun.......

    Ran thru the stages and took no more than 3 shots to hit the target/holder. Just went by the "dust" /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif Powder and bullets were cheap, though. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
     
  6. Jimm

    Jimm Writers Guild

    Messages:
    1,270
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Roy , Roy , Roy,

    you missed the fly ! or did you even see it ? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
     
  7. dog caller

    dog caller Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    110
    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2006
    [ QUOTE ]

    So, if some of you have a little spare time on your hands and feel up to explaining to me, what I might be doing wrong, or where the differences lie in the two programs I would definately appreciate it.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Hey Mike,
    I don't have Exbal but the ranging scope on the simulation is 10x. If you switch to 20x, the target is magnified but it does not mil correctly. You have to mil the target in 10x. Give that a try and see if it makes the two compare better. I hear you on the algebra thing, too. BartB pointed out to me that I could be the president of the new number fumblers organization if it ever starts up. It never affected my work either /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif