Hornady 4DOF Ballistic Program

Dread264

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2016
Messages
15
^^^ Like ^^^

He is also a very accomplished marksman.

I like that AB does other bullets besides Berger. I shoot Nosler and Sierra. I like that AB has correct data for those bullets too.

I did notice that Hornady listed a couple Berger bullets with their new tool, but it won't be much use to me if the main focus on the tool is just their products.
It's not, they intend to release more bullets as time progresses, I believe they've stated somewhere in here.
 

Dread264

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2016
Messages
15
Im amazed at the people who will jump up on hornady's behalf, facts unknown, to teach a aerospace engineer, who built his reputation designing missles, how hornady's "new" 4dof is so superior to anything else that has been created.

Especially since bryan has gone so freaking far out of his way to run thousands of retardedly complex equations, and countless more experiments to settle our silliest questions. Hell he even has a sub forum just so he can personally answer the same 5 questions over and over.

Wheres hornady at? A vague press release, "trust us its better."

You guys are impossible to please. Just children yelling at men, who built the wheel from sticks and stones, saying they did it wrong.
Part of the unprofessional part about this whole thing are post like this one.

Dave Emary is a pretty accomplished ballistician, working for the government and the military, Bachelor of Science degrees in Physics and Aeronautical/Astronautical engineering from Bowling Green and the Air Force institution of Technology, made Captain in the Air Force, time with the Airforce HQ in the Pentagon. Did some work with Olin (winchester) Corp and Los Alamos Labratory in New Mexico.

But some of the responses here would make him out to be an idiot that Hornady just hired off the street.
 

DocUSMCRetired

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2014
Messages
681
Location
Texas
To put this simply, if you read the headline on the article it says "Marketing Hype In Ballistic". I know people keeping going back to validity of this, and credentials of that. We never said the solver itself couldn't provide results. Bryan has even gone so far as to point out what those flaws are. To bring us back on track, this is about the claims made, which are completely false.

Claims like "the first to correctly" which is a slap in the face to countless people before them. Honestly, Hornady is not the first at anything here. They are certainly not the first to do it correctly publically.

They use the term "novel" which means new/original. Nothing they have done here is new and or original. In fact, they are a decade behind the curve. Even in their rebuttal they use the term "novel".

What this is really about is integrity and honesty in marketing. It really isn't that big of a deal that Hornady came out with a new solver. It isn't that big of a deal that they added in aerodynamic jump like a dozen other solvers already had. This is about twisting words, and being dishonest to the public. 4DOF is nothing new. Correctly calculating Aerodynamic Jump, Coriolis, and Spin Drift is nothing new. Using CDMs (Mach vs CD) is nothing new. Making it publically available is nothing new. Using marketing to twist words and mislead the public is nothing new. See the trend here?

All this is about, is dishonest claims. Not the solver.
 

Dread264

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2016
Messages
15
And yet some people on the Applied Ballistics team decided to make it personal.

Neither side is right here.
 

DocUSMCRetired

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2014
Messages
681
Location
Texas
And yet some people on the Applied Ballistics team decided to make it personal.

Neither side is right here.

Some people at Hornady decided to make it personal, some people at AB decided to make it right. When you say you are the "first to correctly" do anything. You are not only lying to the public in this instance, but you are taking a shot at those who came before you, and did it correctly. This isn't just about AB. Their have been many solvers, on many levels. Their have been others whos solvers got shooters on target accurately. You can look up a dozen solvers, and find tens of thousands of users who use it effectively. I don't know their exact numbers but I can tell you thousands to tens of thousands of users put the AB Free Solver (which solves correctly for all the things Hornady claims, and more) and get incredibly accurate results. This is about integrity in science.

This should also bring up in question on the users end integrity across the board. However their is nothing wrong with bringing science and fact in to dispel marketing myths. It is a disservice to the shooting community to feed the a false narrative, and give them a technically false rendition of the truth. Range Rumors spread quickly. So it is important to dispel myth from science before it can reach too far in to the community and you are left myth-busting for years to come.
 

Dread264

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2016
Messages
15
Ah, the old "Two wrongs make a right" argument.

You're not unbiased, there lies another problem, even the way you have worded your responses reflects this.

For instance, AB "Calculates" all their corrections and Hornady "Estimates" all of theirs.

Certainly no bias at all... I mean Hornady's "Estimates" are derived with calculations, and ABs "Calculations" are estimates that may require truing (in my case they did) but they're completely different things.

And Snipershide just postep two topics by another big and accomplished ballistician that make it seem like AB isn't calculating this right (at least that's the impression I got)

What this is, is two sides who have a competing product both promoting their product, and trying to discredit the other.

But one team is trying to do it by claiming they are unbiased and represent the truth, while skewing words and attacking the credibility of the other. And claiming everything they do is correct.

I'll say it again, Neither side is right here and both of you should drop it.

But I am just a consumer.
 

Scottytuned

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
91
Location
Nebraska
I'll say it again, Neither side is right here and both of you should drop it.

Best advice for everyone.

Reading this drag on isn't becoming for AB as they have 3 people continue to argue against the marketing department of Hornady. If you really have the best (which many think you do), let your product speak for itself. If someone uses the Hornady calculator and is 4 MOA off, and then uses the AB calculator and is .5 MOA off, do you really think the marketing department is going to sway them? Again, I use the AB free calculator for that reason.

I think the bigger thing to discuss isn't the minutia of who created what first, who likes what equipment more, or how a marketing department (which may or may not even be shooters) portrays something. It should be about what works, and how accurate it is.

Here's a challenge: Why doesn't Bryan or a representative from AB come to the Grand Island shooting facility of Hornady and do a test (or vice versa). Each use their free calculator (to make things equal) on a bullet with a known velocity, and see who puts up the best scores at a variety of ranges. It would have same wind, same environmental conditions, and could even use the same gun. Would speak a whole hell of a lot better than a bunch of squabbling on an online forum. lightbulb
 

Korhil78

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2011
Messages
2,928
Location
New Mexico
Best advice for everyone.

Reading this drag on isn't becoming for AB as they have 3 people continue to argue against the marketing department of Hornady. If you really have the best (which many think you do), let your product speak for itself. If someone uses the Hornady calculator and is 4 MOA off, and then uses the AB calculator and is .5 MOA off, do you really think the marketing department is going to sway them? Again, I use the AB free calculator for that reason.

I think the bigger thing to discuss isn't the minutia of who created what first, who likes what equipment more, or how a marketing department (which may or may not even be shooters) portrays something. It should be about what works, and how accurate it is.

Here's a challenge: Why doesn't Bryan or a representative from AB come to the Grand Island shooting facility of Hornady and do a test (or vice versa). Each use their free calculator (to make things equal) on a bullet with a known velocity, and see who puts up the best scores at a variety of ranges. It would have same wind, same environmental conditions, and could even use the same gun. Would speak a whole hell of a lot better than a bunch of squabbling on an online forum. lightbulb

If Hornady and AB had an accuracy contest, my money would be on AB for sure. That's why I don't think that they need to be airing out the laundry. People who shoot long range a lot will figure it out real fast. Sometimes it's better to remain silent and let the rrat reveal itself.
 

Scottytuned

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
91
Location
Nebraska
If Hornady and AB had an accuracy contest, my money would be on AB for sure. That's why I don't think that they need to be airing out the laundry. People who shoot long range a lot will figure it out real fast. Sometimes it's better to remain silent and let the rrat reveal itself.

That is a very high likelihood, and my money would be on them as well. Them offering that challenge, or participating, would be a lot more productive towards convincing shooters than this internet discussion has been. That being said, I live down the road from Hornady and would love to see how this would work out.
 

mitch260

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2012
Messages
210
Location
Michigan
Ah, the old "Two wrongs make a right" argument.

You're not unbiased, there lies another problem, even the way you have worded your responses reflects this.

For instance, AB "Calculates" all their corrections and Hornady "Estimates" all of theirs.

Certainly no bias at all... I mean Hornady's "Estimates" are derived with calculations, and ABs "Calculations" are estimates that may require truing (in my case they did) but they're completely different things.

And Snipershide just postep two topics by another big and accomplished ballistician that make it seem like AB isn't calculating this right (at least that's the impression I got)

What this is, is two sides who have a competing product both promoting their product, and trying to discredit the other.

But one team is trying to do it by claiming they are unbiased and represent the truth, while skewing words and attacking the credibility of the other. And claiming everything they do is correct.

I'll say it again, Neither side is right here and both of you should drop it.

But I am just a consumer.

Dread,

Our calculations have been repeatedly tested with live fire testing. These "correct" methods are only "correct" if they reflect what actually happens on target. We have continuously proven our system to "correctly" account for these effects. This is the benefit to a solver supported by a full time ballistics lab.

The problem with these claims of first to do it "correctly" or the other claims you mention of ours not being done right from other sources, is that those were all done on paper so to speak. We are not claiming that their method of calculation isn't "technically" correct. But that their method relies on PRODAS estimations that have historically been unreliable for high levels of precision. So what is "technically correct" and what is "practically correct" are two different things. Our solver uses much simpler methods that don't rely on estimated data that may or may not be accurate, but our method has been proven by live fire test to be accurate within the ability of any shooter/weapon's capability.

Long story short, we have been calculating these "correctly" for years. And by "correctly", we mean where the bullets actually go on paper.

We haven't attacked the science behind the Hornady solver or anyone at Hornady personally. What we did do was call them out on their marketing claims and that they are trying to patent something that already exists.

I think anyone that reads Bryan's latest statements in response to comments from Hornady, will realize that this isn't about us just trying to knock Hornady out of the game. Our mission from the start was to keep the truth at the surface, which yes, does somewhat defend our own product. But if the truth is labeled as biased, I guess so be it. Trying to keep the industry focused on reality and truth isn't unprofessional.

We are all for giving credit where credit is due, but we understand the complexities of these solvers and the realities, as well as what has already been accomplished, by others and by ourselves.
 

mitch260

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2012
Messages
210
Location
Michigan
If Hornady and AB had an accuracy contest, my money would be on AB for sure. That's why I don't think that they need to be airing out the laundry. People who shoot long range a lot will figure it out real fast. Sometimes it's better to remain silent and let the rrat reveal itself.

There is a lot of truth to that, and in many cases that is a good course of action. However, in this case, we felt that a response was necessary due to the claims Hornady's team had made and the large reach that a marketing team like Hornady's has. Our position has always been promoting truth and facts for the long range shooting world, and in this case, we believed that a response was needed to keep reality in the fore front.
 

Korhil78

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2011
Messages
2,928
Location
New Mexico
Dread,

Our calculations have been repeatedly tested with live fire testing. These "correct" methods are only "correct" if they reflect what actually happens on target. We have continuously proven our system to "correctly" account for these effects. This is the benefit to a solver supported by a full time ballistics lab.

The problem with these claims of first to do it "correctly" or the other claims you mention of ours not being done right from other sources, is that those were all done on paper so to speak. We are not claiming that their method of calculation isn't "technically" correct. But that their method rely's on PRODAS estimations that have historically been unreliable for high levels of precision. So what is "technically correct" and what is "practically correct" are two different things. Our solver uses much simpler methods that don't rely on estimated data that may or may not be accurate, but our method has been proven by live fire test to be accurate within the ability of any shooter/weapon's capability.

Long story short, we have been calculating these "correctly" for years. And by "correctly", we mean where the bullets actually go on paper.

We haven't attacked the science behind the Hornady solver or anyone at Hornady personally. What we did do was call them out on their marketing claims and that they are trying to patent something that already exists.

I think anyone that reads Bryan's latest statements in response to comments from Hornady, will realize that this isn't about us just trying to knock Hornady out of the game. Our mission from the start was to keep the truth at the surface, which yes, does somewhat defend our own product. But if the truth is labeled as biased, I guess so be it. Trying to keep the industry focused on reality and truth isn't unprofessional.

We are all for giving credit where credit is due, but we understand the complexities of these solvers and the realities, as well as what has already been accomplished, by others and by ourselves.

Man...you guys have used your product to get first round hits at 2400 yards. 2400 freaking yards!! You have won multiple contests using your product. You have spent years to perfect it. I know it sounds like I have been against you in my other posts on the other thread but I am not. You guys are at the top of the mountain looking down. Long range shooters are very skeptical about other companies ballistic claims in the first place. Skeptical of all but yours because you guys have put in the work. I just think you guys jumped the gun with this and made yourself look a little petty to the consumer. Like I said, you are at the top of the mountain. Let the other companies try to climb to where you are. I doubt very seriously they will make it. If they do then congrats to them.

Believe me, you don't need to tell us to be skeptical of their 4DOF product. It's unproven and the shooter can figure out real fast if it's a good product or not.
 

Dread264

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2016
Messages
15
Dread,

Our calculations have been repeatedly tested with live fire testing. These "correct" methods are only "correct" if they reflect what actually happens on target. We have continuously proven our system to "correctly" account for these effects. This is the benefit to a solver supported by a full time ballistics lab.

The problem with these claims of first to do it "correctly" or the other claims you mention of ours not being done right from other sources, is that those were all done on paper so to speak. We are not claiming that their method of calculation isn't "technically" correct. But that their method relies on PRODAS estimations that have historically been unreliable for high levels of precision. So what is "technically correct" and what is "practically correct" are two different things. Our solver uses much simpler methods that don't rely on estimated data that may or may not be accurate, but our method has been proven by live fire test to be accurate within the ability of any shooter/weapon's capability.

Long story short, we have been calculating these "correctly" for years. And by "correctly", we mean where the bullets actually go on paper.

We haven't attacked the science behind the Hornady solver or anyone at Hornady personally. What we did do was call them out on their marketing claims and that they are trying to patent something that already exists.

I think anyone that reads Bryan's latest statements in response to comments from Hornady, will realize that this isn't about us just trying to knock Hornady out of the game. Our mission from the start was to keep the truth at the surface, which yes, does somewhat defend our own product. But if the truth is labeled as biased, I guess so be it. Trying to keep the industry focused on reality and truth isn't unprofessional.

We are all for giving credit where credit is due, but we understand the complexities of these solvers and the realities, as well as what has already been accomplished, by others and by ourselves.


While I have no doubt that this was all well intentioned, it certainly hasn't come off that way.

When you say that the radar is only as good as the people using it, then people come in and say that AB is better because they have a rocket scientist, it comes of as, and comfirms, a level of personal attack that is unbecoming of a company that I send my money to.

That isn't arguing facts.

And to keep saying that you are only arguing facts and speaking the truth while that has gone on is unbecoming.

The truth would have revealed itself real quickly when people started using it.

And I doubt that the core group of people that use AB software would have switch anyways considering that the Hornady solver is website only and AB has apps, Kestrel, Web based, CD based solvers and a larger bullet selection.

So the entire AB response has been a bit confusing to say the least.
 

Korhil78

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2011
Messages
2,928
Location
New Mexico
Are you affiliated with Hornady Dread? You started your account yesterday and the only thing you have contributed to this website is 5 posts dedicated to this thread. That's what seems confusing to me.
 
Top