Hornady 4DOF Ballistic Program

[Dread264]

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.

Certainly not, at least not in any major way, I use their bullets, amunition and some of their reloading tools, but I use AB'S app and drag curves and have bought a couple of Bryan's books and plan to get the rest eventually.

I've been watching the discussion on Hornady's new solver, actually on the Hide, but the conversation shifted to over here.

When I saw the direction it started to take I became a bit troubled, but I thought that maybe I was the only one who thought that way, when someone posted something along the same lines I decided to create a account and provide my thoughts, as a customer of both Hornady and AB.

 

[mitch260]

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.

I can understand how that could have been misunderstood, and I will concede that perhaps better wording could have been used. It was never a personal attack on Hornady or the guys that work for them at all, we've stated this multiple times.

In fact, we were pointing out that just because something says radar, doesn't mean that it is more accurate. There is a lot more that has to be done behind the scenes to get from radar velocity decay data to custom drag model. And, this was only brought up to point out that a radar the just measures velocity decay isn't the end all be all after others were attacking our methods of collecting data, which is within 1% of that of radar and is definitely more accurate then most companies can keep their various lots consistent too. It was not part of out original statement.

The same could be said for Hornady in that they made it personal when they claimed be the first to do things we have already been doing and are trying to patent something others have already done. Depends on the interpretation. This has already been brought up and debated, but at the end of the day, it is just about the truth. And you are correct in that it will be tested over time to see whether or not it works, but that doesn't mean that there aren't claims that should be addressed. We made the decision to address Hornady on these claims.

 

[Dread264]

I can understand how that could have been misunderstood, and I will concede that perhaps better wording could have been used. It was never a personal attack on Hornady or the guys that work for them at all, we've stated this multiple times.

In fact, we were pointing out that just because something says radar, doesn't mean that it is more accurate. There is a lot more that has to be done behind the scenes to get from radar velocity decay data to custom drag model. And, this was only brought up to point out that a radar the just measures velocity decay isn't the end all be all after others were attacking our methods of collecting data, which is within 1% of that of radar and is definitely more accurate then most companies can keep their various lots consistent too. It was not part of out original statement.

The same could be said for Hornady in that they made it personal when they claimed be the first to do things we have already been doing and are trying to patent something others have already done. Depends on the interpretation. This has already been brought up and debated, but at the end of the day, it is just about the truth. And you are correct in that it will be tested over time to see whether or not it works, but that doesn't mean that there aren't claims that should be addressed. We made the decision to address Hornady on these claims.

Indeed Hornady's took personal attacks as well, and watching their first video when that claim came up my first thought was "The AB team is not going to like that one bit" I figured a response would come, only as We've been calculating AJ and using custom drag curves for awhile now.

Instead we are where we are, not because of either party singularly but because of both.

Anyways, I've said my piece, and I'll be interested to test when both solvers have the bullets I use in them to see what they come up with. But Hornady without an app and Bluetooth to kestrel is already behind the curve.

 

[lrshooter101]

"Truth in Marketing"
If that is not an oxymoron, I don't know what is!

As a general rule, there is actually very little truth in marketing (I know, hard to believe). To the contrary, most marketing folks are experts at anything but telling the truth. Reality is, if they simply came up with the truth, their products would be a whole lot less sexy, and anyone could do the job. They get paid well to stretch the truth, work around the truth, and recreate the truth, whatever it takes to "sell baby sell".

Who marketed their bullets with a "truthful" BC? Until Bryan Litz publicly hit the scene, the answer was pretty much no one (Sierra gets a pass). Most manufacturers were using a bunch of made up or over inflated numbers to try and get a leg up on the competition. When Bryan published his BC values for pretty much everyone's bullets, that brought about some "truth in marketing". THANKS! If someone had not taken the time and effort to do that, where would all of us long range shooters be? We would still be at the mercy of the marketing folks, and still wasting a bunch of time trying to figure out what the BCs really were.

Now Hornady comes along touting the many exploits of their "NEW" 4DOF Ballistic Solver. Many consumers were probably sitting back in amazement at its many miraculous capabilities, impressed by this new "patent-able" technology, and jumping for joy at its low-low price of free. Thanks has to go out to those Hornady marketing folks for doing another bang up job at launching a new product.

Then Bryan Litz aka "Mr Truth in Marketing" shows up, blowing out the candles, popping the balloons, tearing down the streamers, and the launch party is not really a party anymore. Now its on like Donkey Kong, we have AB in this corner, and Hornday in this corner! Better figure out what side you are on, because you are either with them, or you are with us. This is going to make the Civil war look tame by comparison.

8 pages later, on multiple internet forums, and we probably have a slightly better idea where a lot of the truth actually lies. Unfortunately, things got said in the heat of the moment, feelings got hurt, and rather than coming together as a long range shooting community, many shooters were pushed in one direction or another. Who's at fault was all of that, **** Marketing People!

What could I possibly add to all of this, I would say consider the following:
- Patents? That part scares the HELL out of me, because I have lived through way too many legal battles between companies over who had the rights to what. Everyone remember the reticle battles, anything that had some form of a hashmark in it was a violation of someone's patent rights. How much did that cost us as end users/shooters? Way too much. Who got rich, the **** Lawyers!
- Whats Next? Leave it to those Hornady marketing people to pull out the oldest trick in the book. Who would like some free candy, I mean who would like a free online ballistic solver? So you really like that free online option, great, but guess what we have for you now? An App! Oh joy! Free, well not exactly. Guess what else we have? How about a full bullet library?. Great! Free, well not exactly. Money, Money, were in the Money Now! Someone thank those people in marketing for taking something that was free and turning it into another money maker!
- Whats Wrong With That? Nothing wrong with making money off of a product you develop, right? Go back to that first part, PATENTS! Now all of a sudden, we have gone from a free product, to a patented product that people are paying for, to a situation where we once again have a patent ******* contest that locks up the market and makes every shooters life miserable.
Is that all some far fetched stretch? Maybe, but it would not be the first time that things went down that way.

If all of this discussion and debate could keep something like that from happening, then sorry but I am all for it!

Way too much typing, so it is time to call it quits with that!

 

[BergerFan222]

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.

Modified Point Mass (MPM) solvers have existed for a while, but new implementations of existing technologies are frequently patented in cases where the new implementation offers something truly new. How many different patents are out there for the fast Fourier transform (FFT) or variations on fuel injection? Lots and lots.

As far as I can tell, Hornady is the first with a public 4 DOF solver using the MPM technique in conjunction with aerodynamic parameters derived from experimental spark gap testing rather than purely theoretical modelling. It may be an open question whether this approach improves accuracy over existing methods, but I think their claim that their approach is new (thus patent worthy) is valid.

 

[Capt RB]

The radar systems being developed today soild state with no magnatron are far more accurate and far less expensive than just 5 years ago. Tracking a bullet with radar will create a far more accurate drag curve than an acoustic tracking system. If it didn't then missile defense systems would use acoustics vs radar Even the rocket scientists arguing on this thread cannot dispute this. Hornady may or may not be up to speed yet but the thought process and method seems like a better way and in the end should prove that.
Two competitors ******* in each others cheerios is nothing but great imho. We the consumers will benefit plus be entertained by highly educated (in their fields) losing their composure. It's like watching a girl fight. The actual fight is meaningless. The hour of provocative name calling preceding it is priceless

 

[Wedgy]

So I assume Hornady will fielding a team at the next King Of 2 Mile Shoot

Applied Ballistics Shooters Dominate King of 2 Miles Finals

Applied Ballistics team dominates the King of 2 Miles match: Mitchell Fitzpatrick (1st Place), Bryan Litz (2nd Place), and Paul Phillips (4th Place).

Girl fights ain't what they used to be
Ronda Rousey Knocked Out By Holly Holm - GIF on Imgur

 

[BryanLitz]

We hope to see them there!

 

[Dread264]

So I assume Hornady will fielding a team at the next King Of 2 Mile Shoot

Applied Ballistics Shooters Dominate King of 2 Miles Finals

Applied Ballistics team dominates the King of 2 Miles match: Mitchell Fitzpatrick (1st Place), Bryan Litz (2nd Place), and Paul Phillips (4th Place).

Girl fights ain't what they used to be
Ronda Rousey Knocked Out By Holly Holm - GIF on Imgur

What would that prove exactly?

If a guy showed up, and beat both of them without using a Ballistic solver and just whipped out his DOPE book, would that mean that ballistic solvers are worthless all together?

 

[Buckammo]

"What would that prove exactly"..........

It would prove the validity of their hype.....or not.

John

 

[Wedgy]

That will NEVER happen and you know it, so why ask

 

[Dread264]

"What would that prove exactly"..........

It would prove the validity of their hype.....or not.

John

How exactly?

 

[Wedgy]

Marketing talks the talk, results is walking the walk, and that's all the marketing you need. I'm not saying they can't win or even be competitive. If next year the headline reads
"Hornady Dominates KO2M !" then we will know it's not just marketing. At least field at team if you're be on the cutting edge.
BTW, cutting edge bullets placed 3rd

 

[Dread264]

The only thing it may prove is which team knows how to run their software better.

If you want to see which is more accurate take some random guy, that's shooting a bullet both programs would have to have, and plug in his data and see who is closer, without any trueing. Luckily we can all be that random guy.

If Berger or Hornady ran their software to their fullest and trued everything up as both they could, they should both spit out the same number.

Thus it would prove nothing, except maybe who prepared more.


Just running both programs with my load for the 140 Hornady BTHP same everything else the difference between the two programs is .1 mrad at 1k yards 4.2 mrad at 2k yards I have no idea which is actually correct.