Hornady 4DOF Ballistic Program
- Thread starter AaronSkipDavidson
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
DocUSMCRetired
Well-Known Member
Why does one program not work as is? Ours didn't need any modifications before the event. Just posting in reply to "both programs should be able to be calibrated". I literally added the CDM in the night before the event. It was used the next day as is.
Who knows, why is AB off for me currently? (Again using Litz bullet Data, Kestrel weather meter, and magneto speed for velocity)
I have no idea what you guys did before hand, and given the inherent bias that both teams would have to prove their program is right I would only trust the out come if like I said at the KO2M both Hornady and AB walked up to a random guy using a bullet they both had custom drag curves for and plugged in his data to see what they both put out and if either of them was correct.
I doubt that, that will happen. So I plan to test both programs myself eventually and I'll probably use the AB app regardless of the outcome because it's an app and where I shoot I don't get cell reception half the time.
BergerFan222
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2015
- Messages
- 38
Someone help me out: do AB's custom drag curves extend far enough down into the the subsonic region to be accurate at two miles for a significant subset of their bullets?
Or are subsonic drag curves something they have really only worked out for a handful of bullets for the 2 mile thing?
Please correct me if I am wrong, but the AB acoustic method as described in the books would only work with supersonic bullets. Is there some modification or adaptation of the method to get it to work for subsonic bullets?
Radar is known not to have any limitation determining drag curves through the sonic transition and down into the subsonic range. Knowing this, I would think it would be much easier for Hornady to provide accurate drag curves for a wide range of bullets at transonic and subsonic speeds.
How many bullets does AB really have drag curves for down to M0.8 or M0.6? And how were these determined?
Or are subsonic drag curves something they have really only worked out for a handful of bullets for the 2 mile thing?
Please correct me if I am wrong, but the AB acoustic method as described in the books would only work with supersonic bullets. Is there some modification or adaptation of the method to get it to work for subsonic bullets?
Radar is known not to have any limitation determining drag curves through the sonic transition and down into the subsonic range. Knowing this, I would think it would be much easier for Hornady to provide accurate drag curves for a wide range of bullets at transonic and subsonic speeds.
How many bullets does AB really have drag curves for down to M0.8 or M0.6? And how were these determined?
bigngreen
Well-Known Member
I've seen this BS talking point on other forums, are you guys just so chaffed that Bryan and that team can actually back up their technical skills behind a rifle as well? You always hear the prove it on the range challenge, well, they did just that but now that's not good enough they need to do it with a complete novice, then it would mean something, wow.
DocUSMCRetired
Well-Known Member
Yes our CDMs extend well in to subsonic. Their are methods that allow the setup to be used at sub-sonic and with very small calibers.
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2006
- Messages
- 283
I think there is a fine line between Engineering and Marketing at shooting events. We want engineers to understand shooting, but we also want them at the desk (range/lab/etc) developing new products! As a customer, I'm looking for better products.
We get that all the time. We use TV shows (Long Range Pursuit) as our "shooting event". Hopefully proving that our products work. Some of our more effective episodes are the ones where we have the average guy do the shooting, rather than the "expert". The point being if the product is truly great, it's truly great for the average guy, not just the expert.
On a different tangent, what solvers were the bottom 5 or 10 competitors using? And what does it prove/disprove if one of them was using AB?
PS. I used AB on my phone this morning to send dope to a customer in the field hunting antelope on our Combination Training/Hunting trips. A customer had a MOA rifle without BDC, and needed drop data. I emailed a chart straight from the app. Dead Goat!
Who are "you guys"?
As an accomplished of a shooter as Bryan is, it's not really relevant to how good of a ballistician he is. Not to slight him in that department either as he's well accomplished there as well. Of course so is Dave Emary Hornady's chief ballistician. I doubt either one of them will claim to be better then the other, and i doubt you have their resumes to determine that yourself.
Doc, would I be correct to assume that the CD/M developed for the prototype .375 berger pill was developed with the use of the rifles that were used at the KO2M and the same lot of bullets?
If that's the case then it's not surprising no truing was needed, for the rest of us with different barrels, and lots of bullets it's probably going to need trueing. Since the drag curves will change with lot variations and variations in barrels.
And really in this case it doesn't matter if x manufacturers bullet lots are more consistent then Y manufacturers because AB (and Hornady if they are to be believed) will have multiple manufacturers drag profiles.
Got busy halfway through this so if someone has responded already I'll address it soon.
Canadian Bushman
Well-Known Member
Edd, there is definitely room to improve. Keep in mind that the 3378 yard target is only 24" tall, 36" wide, which is only 0.67 MOA tall and just over 1 MOA wide. On top of that, by the time you get to that target you will only have 5 or less minutes left and 5 shots to hit it. Not only that, but spotting impacts is incredibly difficult. No matter who hits it, it will be an accomplishment to be celebrated. This is what makes the KO2M event special. This isn't a lay down and prepare/shoot all day thing.
Guys, I just want to clear some things up here that I have tried too previously.
A) There was never a personal attack on the guys developing the Hornady system.
B) We understand that the Hornady solver is capable of being an accurate solver and are not disputing that, the key here is helping people to understand what it is and isn't hype. Hornady is throwing around a lot of buzzwords and technical information about how much more accurate their solver is than anything on the public market and that they are the first to do it correctly. Well, this turned into a big debate over who's is more accurate, forcing us to keep addressing this. The key here, is that our data is already within 1% of what the best radar data is, and we continuously prove this through live fire tests. Lot variance and possibly anomalies with specific rifles (which some people have brought up as reasons to true) can easily throw the data from even a perfect custom drag curve well out of the tiny possible difference between our colletion method and radar.
What are you guys hoping to gain with radar data? Again, not saying its bad at all, but our data will get you closer than 99.9% of guys can keep their variables, including bullet lot variance and possible rifle anomalies. And you can't say guys didn't fall for the Hornady marketing hype. Most people in this discussion keep going back to the accuracy of the Custom Drag model data, which was never a problem to begin with. It became a problem when Hornady said it was, and this is exactly the kind of thing (hype) that gave us reason to publish the article and confront Hornady.
Most guys here will agree that the lot variations and possible rifle anomalies cause the vast majority of error in the predictions. I am going to throw user input errors in this group as well, since this is very important and is definitely one of the larger causes of error in data.
C) I can't comment on the patent issue, but Bryan knows this field and wouldn't have had issue with it if it were a legitimate position.
At the end of the day, you guys can keep trying to say that we are just putting out hype and are just scared of Hornady jumping into the market, but that is just simply not the case. If Hornady brought out a team to the KO2M match and won, we would be the first ones there to shake their hand and congratulate them. One comment in a long post above was something to the effect of "I hope guys can see whats really going on here." Well, we do too.
Going all the way back to the beginning, we just want guys to keep things focused on reality and the truth. And if that comes with some criticism from the other side then so be it.
Guys can come out to any of these matches and meet us. Those who have know we are out there to advance the sport and keep things real. We go to these matches and frequent these forums because we are right in the middle of the sport of long range shooting.
Last edited:
I agree Aaron, but this also brings up a big point of balance. You can't judge a solver if you don't do everything right. What we did, was to get every input a accurate as we could. We used a Custom Drag curve measured out of our rifles and bullets. In other words, we negated the possibility of anomalies due to lot variance or possible rifle anomalies. What was proven in this example was that our solver was SPOT ON and our method of data collection is more than accurate enough to put first rounds on target out to 2500 yards.
A solver needs to be user friendly, but a solver will only be accurate if you allow the user to input all of the variable required. This fact means that a solver can only be so simple, before we have to rely on the user to take the time to properly use it. Again, any accurate solver will face the same problem.
Is our solver susceptible to bullet lot variation? For sure, but the Hornady solver would be equally susceptible.
So what are you really hoping to gain with the radar?
Also, in reference to the comment referring to the bottom 5 or ten shooter. There were a number of guys who had equipment/load issues that resulted in very few, if any hits at the closest targets. But, there were a number of guys using printed data from various online solvers or just DOPE from shooting. I can't offer specifics on the placing of these individuals, but I have attached the final score sheet for guys to examine the spread of the scores.
Better shooting products are developed and tested on the range. Personally, knowing the engineer that developed the product is also a world class shooter is a good thing. Our time on the range definitely doesn't detract from our products, if that is what you were trying to get at. I think most would agree that our active position in the shooting world benefits our product development.
Attachments
Good enough post for me.
This has all been interesting, and I could talk or listen for days on the nuances.
Marketing aside, Hornady seems to be doing some interesting things, how much that will help shooting who knows.
For the mean time and the forsee able future I'll keep using my AB products, the support is great, and it's has much more refinement.
I suspect that if Hornady is on to something i believe it will only push the AB team to match or beat them as well.
Looking forward to when the ELD drag curves come.
Good luck, and farewell.
(Geez according to some people I'm one of "those guys" lmao yup one of "those guys" who uses AB stuff, such a Hornady fanatic lmao)
