Ballistics isn't the math the math?

[Doom2]

Probably one of the most frequent errors that happens is pressure. The programs use actual station pressure but that is often not readily available so the input is barometric pressure (sea level) and altitude. Confuse these on the input side and you will have differences in drop at long range.

Different programs will also likely use different step sizes in the integration routines which will results in minor differences in the results.

 

[dfanonymous]

The math IS NOT the math with ballistic calculators, unfortunately. As with anything, anything worth doing well involves particular nuances that factor in the separating bad, good and excellent.

There is some theory built into of the math calculators. More on that later, but these theories even though well founded, due to various micro inputs from imperfect beings, some of the math is averaged. The world and technology is not perfect. Point being, imperfection is introduced the entire time.


Here's a good example on how recoil management alone can vary inputs if data:

Other examples can be things that effect the rifles harmonics, including head position and head pressure. Even parallax. In short, what I consider to be fundamentals. Despite how small, as errors compound, they become more apparent.

Easy enough right?

When we get into things like spin drift, and at distances that spin drift actually matters, most calculators are incorrect. They use things like miller stability, however, when measured, it's close but not THAT close. If doc from AB is still on here maybe he can talk more about the math, as it was either him or Litz that I learned that a flat rate value was given that often over compensates on SD.

The further out you go, those errors compound, as mentioned before. From what I've seen and been apart of, I can confidently tell you that monos, since they are longer, and thus require different twist rates, will have a different spin drift value, then a lead core bullet in the same caliber and weight category. The math is closer to 1% of drop for monos or hyper twist barrels and 2.5% of drop for lead core projectiles using standard twist barrels.

So there is another example.

BC is another concept, often misused or misunderstood as it relates to data. I won't get into unless asked, as I'm actually getting bored typing on a phone.

 

[FEENIX]

I hope that after 10 years, the OP has figured out the ballistic issues/concerns.

 

[Hugnot]

All sorts of ways to calculate ballistic stuff & all sorts of variables - the math is not the math. The Hornady 4DOF seems to one of the better methods.

 

[Justice1327]

The math IS NOT the math with ballistic calculators, unfortunately. As with anything, anything worth doing well involves particular nuances that factor in the separating bad, good and excellent.

There is some theory built into of the math calculators. More on that later, but these theories even though well founded, due to various micro inputs from imperfect beings, some of the math is averaged. The world and technology is not perfect. Point being, imperfection is introduced the entire time.


Here's a good example on how recoil management alone can vary inputs if data:

Other examples can be things that effect the rifles harmonics, including head position and head pressure. Even parallax. In short, what I consider to be fundamentals. Despite how small, as errors compound, they become more apparent.

Easy enough right?

When we get into things like spin drift, and at distances that spin drift actually matters, most calculators are incorrect. They use things like miller stability, however, when measured, it's close but not THAT close. If doc from AB is still on here maybe he can talk more about the math, as it was either him or Litz that I learned that a flat rate value was given that often over compensates on SD.

The further out you go, those errors compound, as mentioned before. From what I've seen and been apart of, I can confidently tell you that monos, since they are longer, and thus require different twist rates, will have a different spin drift value, then a lead core bullet in the same caliber and weight category. The math is closer to 1% of drop for monos or hyper twist barrels and 2.5% of drop for lead core projectiles using standard twist barrels.

So there is another example.

BC is another concept, often misused or misunderstood as it relates to data. I won't get into unless asked, as I'm actually getting bored typing on a phone.

Please expand upon the BC concept and which solver do you recommend and why?

 

[dfanonymous]

Please expand upon the BC concept and which solver do you recommend and why?

I leave the math and formula to Google and that mass amounts of articles that are available now that weren't available a decade ago.

The short and sweet of BC (as it relates l data) we can start with boxs and bullets. Often times people put in the bc of the box of factory ammo, these numbers are often averaged, again, and further more it's averaged to the test barrel.

(More coming)

 

[dfanonymous]

There's a correlation between BC and velocity, or more technically mach. The BC changes through the life of its flight and thus a singular value on the box doesn't cover all distances a shooter might encounter. Now, again, I'm not going ot go over the G1-G7 spectrum, but assuming a modern take on long range shooting and a desire to shoot from zero range to transonic, G7 would be the preferred model.

That said, BC is still related to mach. One of those misconceptions is that people still use one of those averaged values as data, when really it's better if not necessary to use at least 3. These three values can be split between "mid range, long range, and sub sonic."

Even better, Applied Ballistics has put a lot of work into custom curves which are better all around as they are not a model of a general designed modern bullet but actual flight data on THE actual bullet being used. I use custom curves, mostly for simplicity without the sacrifice of accuracy.

 

[dfanonymous]

Which solver to use is the best?

It really doesn't matter.

All the big names will do what you need, and have the same problems. The important thing is to fit what the rifle is doing to software. I'm partial to applied ballistics….I subscribe to Bryan Litz's take on a lot of things, so that's what I do.

The reason is because I have access to some of the staff, and custom curves, and a kestrel. Combined with proper truing methods and verifying data, a lot of people including myself have great success.

 

[Justice1327]

Which solver to use is the best?

It really doesn't matter.

All the big names will do what you need, and have the same problems. The important thing is to fit what the rifle is doing to software. I'm partial to applied ballistics….I subscribe to Bryan Litz's take on a lot of things, so that's what I do.

The reason is because I have access to some of the staff, and custom curves, and a kestrel. Combined with proper truing methods and verifying data, a lot of people including myself have great success.

Thank you. Aware of what you mentioned but always looking for new insight. My biggest improvement was trueing my data beyond 300 on my solver. I mostly shoot Sierra and use their BC at velocity as a good starting place.