bigngreen
Well-Known Member
Broz, did you get those over a chronograph yet?
Little bit of 300 grain Berger results
- Thread starter Tyler Kemp
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Broz, did you get those over a chronograph yet?
Broz
Well-Known Member
Yes I did. Seated at .062" off the lands they averaged 2800 and seated at .015" off the lands 2820.
bigngreen
Well-Known Member
That's a fair bit faster than your guessing earlier. Interesting 
generally Loadbase is not off unless there is some kind of air movement or thermal that you can not see or account for. To bad you can't get a couple crony's lined up and use Loadbase to find the BC and drag value, then you could dial actual numbers.
generally Loadbase is not off unless there is some kind of air movement or thermal that you can not see or account for. To bad you can't get a couple crony's lined up and use Loadbase to find the BC and drag value, then you could dial actual numbers.Broz
Well-Known Member
That's a fair bit faster than your guessing earlier. Interesting
I did have two but the pact refused to record a single shot. I have used this other chrono for 12 years and I have compared it to one other. I feel it is 20 to 30 FPS fast. With exbal and all other rifles I have used it on I need to drop the MV 20 or 30 to get the drops n with published BC's.
With the 388 Hybrid I had to lower the MV to 2760 using the .015 seating depth that had a MV of 2820. With the G1 bc of .891 in exbal and the G7 BC of .455 in Loadbase, both with a MV of 2760 they are in agreement on dial ups. But I am confident the bullet has a higher MV , probably closer to 2790.
Loadbase is cool in the fact you can play with numbers till you are crosseyed. But for ease of use and quick data Exbal kicks its butt. I will continue to use both to see if I will stay with LB or go back to Exbal. But so far, for me, I feel no real gain with LB.
Jeff
Tyler Kemp
Well-Known Member
I can't wait to try these out at long range.
Yes, I did use 3050 fps for my velocity. They hit awful hard on steel!
Yes, I did use 3050 fps for my velocity. They hit awful hard on steel!
Just a thought about changing velocities to hit the target...
Down below I have two images together of the same graph; the
first one is in 3D and the second one in 2D... Just so we can visualize
what's coming.
The Graph has 4 ballistic curves. Every thing is the same with the exception
of the DC (Drag Coefficient). The First 3D graph shows what each color represents.
Basically I'm graphing how the ballistic curve reacts when I change the DC.
As the DC increases it straightens out the curve making it flatter, and as the
DC decreases it bends the curve showing more of a drop.
From DC = 0.1 to DC = 0.9 the curve is manipulated until it fits all of our data. Meaning all the impact points for the many different distances we
shot our data for. For good BC's like the ones found in Bryan Litz's book I
would not be surprised if you have to do much to get it right on very quickly.
If you're using factory so, so, BC, and do not find your sweet spot just by
changing the DC then you might have to get your DC back to 0.500 and make
a small change to your BC's value. If you want the curve to be flatter you increase the value of your BC and decrease it to make the ballistic curve bow
some more for more drop, always trying to fit the existing data.
Once all is done, there will be a setting that will work just right; you want to
stick to that setting.
Now let's assume that you do not know what those settings are. You zero your rifle at 100 yards, crank your turret up to shoot at 1000 yards and you hit
8 inches low. You ask Exbal what your velocity needs to be to hit the
target, LB3.0 will not allow you to do that for a reason; it's not good practice, so... Exbal tells you to lower your muzzle velocity so that you can increase your come-ups to hit the target... I hate that!!! ---- You know, maybe you were just using a ballistic curve that looked like the yellow one on the graph, and all you need is to adjust your DC to make it fit across the board.
Just maybe you only needed to warp your curve to look like the red one and
now you would need more come-ups to be on target.
But now, by changing the velocity instead of taking the chronographed velocity, we just compounded the problem by adding another variable.
I believe we need to use the best possible chronograph in the field, take that velocity input it in a trustable ballistic application with the rest of the
conditions values; after you zero in at 100 yards, (your preference), shoot
at 400 yards, 700 yards, 1000 yards and 1200 yards. Of course we know your scope turrets are working just right. Write down the turret come-ups for each
distance, from the center of each group measure distance to center of target,
take this data and using your DC start curving or straightening your existing field
obtained ballistic curve until it all fits. I don't think we have to do it every 50 yards all the way to 1000 yards... That's fruitless; you can only manipulate the curve so much.
Now you say: Well, I've seen so and so doing that at 1500 yards and he is a successful long range hunter.
Temperature Changes your muzzle velocity; that will depend on how sensitive your powder is to temperature changes. Our expert long range shooter has gone to the process of finding the right settings in a way kind of similar to what I explained before. He did his homework, he knows what's at stake. He knows his settings are right on for a given muzzle velocity. When he sees a low hit at long ranges, when it should not have happened, he knows temperature is changing his muzzle velocity enough to do that and now is only right to question, What is my muzzle velocity? That is just fine. But it's not fine to start doing that when you have not developed settings for your particular load that
at a given set of conditions will run just beautifully.
Hopefully I made some sense... Remember, just my thoughts...
Down below I have two images together of the same graph; the
first one is in 3D and the second one in 2D... Just so we can visualize
what's coming.
The Graph has 4 ballistic curves. Every thing is the same with the exception
of the DC (Drag Coefficient). The First 3D graph shows what each color represents.
Basically I'm graphing how the ballistic curve reacts when I change the DC.
As the DC increases it straightens out the curve making it flatter, and as the
DC decreases it bends the curve showing more of a drop.
From DC = 0.1 to DC = 0.9 the curve is manipulated until it fits all of our data. Meaning all the impact points for the many different distances we
shot our data for. For good BC's like the ones found in Bryan Litz's book I
would not be surprised if you have to do much to get it right on very quickly.
If you're using factory so, so, BC, and do not find your sweet spot just by
changing the DC then you might have to get your DC back to 0.500 and make
a small change to your BC's value. If you want the curve to be flatter you increase the value of your BC and decrease it to make the ballistic curve bow
some more for more drop, always trying to fit the existing data.
Once all is done, there will be a setting that will work just right; you want to
stick to that setting.
Now let's assume that you do not know what those settings are. You zero your rifle at 100 yards, crank your turret up to shoot at 1000 yards and you hit
8 inches low. You ask Exbal what your velocity needs to be to hit the
target, LB3.0 will not allow you to do that for a reason; it's not good practice, so... Exbal tells you to lower your muzzle velocity so that you can increase your come-ups to hit the target... I hate that!!! ---- You know, maybe you were just using a ballistic curve that looked like the yellow one on the graph, and all you need is to adjust your DC to make it fit across the board.
Just maybe you only needed to warp your curve to look like the red one and
now you would need more come-ups to be on target.
But now, by changing the velocity instead of taking the chronographed velocity, we just compounded the problem by adding another variable.
I believe we need to use the best possible chronograph in the field, take that velocity input it in a trustable ballistic application with the rest of the
conditions values; after you zero in at 100 yards, (your preference), shoot
at 400 yards, 700 yards, 1000 yards and 1200 yards. Of course we know your scope turrets are working just right. Write down the turret come-ups for each
distance, from the center of each group measure distance to center of target,
take this data and using your DC start curving or straightening your existing field
obtained ballistic curve until it all fits. I don't think we have to do it every 50 yards all the way to 1000 yards... That's fruitless; you can only manipulate the curve so much.
Now you say: Well, I've seen so and so doing that at 1500 yards and he is a successful long range hunter.
Temperature Changes your muzzle velocity; that will depend on how sensitive your powder is to temperature changes. Our expert long range shooter has gone to the process of finding the right settings in a way kind of similar to what I explained before. He did his homework, he knows what's at stake. He knows his settings are right on for a given muzzle velocity. When he sees a low hit at long ranges, when it should not have happened, he knows temperature is changing his muzzle velocity enough to do that and now is only right to question, What is my muzzle velocity? That is just fine. But it's not fine to start doing that when you have not developed settings for your particular load that
at a given set of conditions will run just beautifully.
Hopefully I made some sense...
Remember, just my thoughts...
Last edited:
I have been using Exbal for more than 5 years. I have also bought every update being the last one 6.5 for my PDA. Here is my proof:
And I have been using LB2.0 and LB3.0 for close to 3 Years. Here is my proof
Reason I'm doing this is because I feel I mislead you when I many times
recommended LB3.0 over Exbal.
If you know both programs as well as I do, you would have a very hard time
saying :
In all honesty, I would say it like this:
LB3.0 is way more involved since it is a huge and powerful suit of applications.
but if we concentrate only on the thing at hand, like, external
ballistics, LB3.0 would whip Exbal in user accessibility and simplicity to use.
But then again, that's just my opinion!
I honestly believe that if you get to know LB3.0 better you would agree
with me. Other wise, I'm sorry if in any way I mislead you.
I believe you're a good person and that's the reason I care.
There is only one ballistic program that I know of that using G1 BC will produce extremely accurate results similar to those produced using G7 BC; and that LoadBase 3.0 The reason for that is because of a highly sophisticated ballistic engine that will allow LB3.0 to do that.
G1 is velocity dependent; not very reliable and accurate for very long range shooting, G7 takes away that dependency making it more reliable; way more reliable. My understanding the maker of Exbal expressed no desire to add the G7 ability to it. What ballistic program do you think we want to use? That's right, no questions asked.
In any event I respect your opinion and respect you as good man and respectfully ask you to believe it was never my desire to mislead any one.
Sincerely,
Eaglet
Last edited:
Broz
Well-Known Member
Eaglet, first and foremost let me appologize for my statemant that made you feel this way. For that I am sorry.
Now, never once did it ever cross my mind that I was mislead in any way by anyone. I simply was looking for a better solution and program and finally decided to try LB. Now that said, if Ididn't feel you were light years ahead of me in mathmatical and computer skills, I wouldn't give your opinion a second thought. But you are and know your stuff.
I admit I am frustrated with LB3.0. Maybe I am just not sharp enough to get it going. I have already spent much time with it, that includs 3 consecutive days. But I can see that is not enough. I am not done I guess. I have documented the dial ups on my scope to 35 moa. I have chronographed, and in the end I still had to drop the MV to get it to come in and match proven come ups at 1000 and 1400. Right now it gives me the same come ups as Exbal only LB takes way longer to give me this. Maybe my Dell axim x50v is just not powerful enough. I only have LB and Exbal on it. This is this PDA's only use.
I got the feeling that maybe LB was a progrm that is better suited for people better educated in math and computer skills. That didnt include me. I just want to shoot and hit my point of aim.
I will document dial ups for 700, 1000, 1200, and 1400 yds. Then see if I can change the DC to any avail.
All I know right now is. Someting does not jive with the .338 hybrid the way I am inputting it. The .455 G7 bc, .500 SD or my MV of 2785 , something is off.
Respectfully.
Jeff
Now, never once did it ever cross my mind that I was mislead in any way by anyone. I simply was looking for a better solution and program and finally decided to try LB. Now that said, if Ididn't feel you were light years ahead of me in mathmatical and computer skills, I wouldn't give your opinion a second thought. But you are and know your stuff.
I admit I am frustrated with LB3.0. Maybe I am just not sharp enough to get it going. I have already spent much time with it, that includs 3 consecutive days. But I can see that is not enough. I am not done I guess. I have documented the dial ups on my scope to 35 moa. I have chronographed, and in the end I still had to drop the MV to get it to come in and match proven come ups at 1000 and 1400. Right now it gives me the same come ups as Exbal only LB takes way longer to give me this. Maybe my Dell axim x50v is just not powerful enough. I only have LB and Exbal on it. This is this PDA's only use.
I got the feeling that maybe LB was a progrm that is better suited for people better educated in math and computer skills. That didnt include me. I just want to shoot and hit my point of aim.
I will document dial ups for 700, 1000, 1200, and 1400 yds. Then see if I can change the DC to any avail.
All I know right now is. Someting does not jive with the .338 hybrid the way I am inputting it. The .455 G7 bc, .500 SD or my MV of 2785 , something is off.
Respectfully.
Jeff
Last edited:
royinidaho
Well-Known Member
Very impressive fellas!
I'm surprised by the large jumps being successful with the Hybrids. I'm not used to jumping and would have wasted a lot of shots before I stumbled on it.
As for Exbal, I can hit the target using it but dropping the MV just seems wrong to make it work!
I'm like Broz, I just want to hit the target, but wake up in the middle of the night thinking about that MV drop thing.
I think Eaglet has the right understanding of things. Well, at least one that I agree with.
Keep it goin' guys!
I'm surprised by the large jumps being successful with the Hybrids. I'm not used to jumping and would have wasted a lot of shots before I stumbled on it.
As for Exbal, I can hit the target using it but dropping the MV just seems wrong to make it work!
I'm like Broz, I just want to hit the target, but wake up in the middle of the night thinking about that MV drop thing.
I think Eaglet has the right understanding of things. Well, at least one that I agree with
.Keep it goin' guys!
SHRTSHTR
Well-Known Member
Tyler,
I might have missed this somewhere but what is your OAL with the 338 Hybrid? Also, how far off the lands are you? I have the same reamer drawing as you and am curious about the overall length. Want to make sure it will fit my Seekins mag. at 3.900" when I get it back from the smith.
Ray
I might have missed this somewhere but what is your OAL with the 338 Hybrid? Also, how far off the lands are you? I have the same reamer drawing as you and am curious about the overall length. Want to make sure it will fit my Seekins mag. at 3.900" when I get it back from the smith.
Ray
Broz
Well-Known Member
Guys, I started another thread on the Berger / LB thing. So I don't muck up Tylers thread anymore.
This was started right after I came in with drops at 700, 1042 and 1342 yards with the .338 Hybrids.
Here is a link.
http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f19/help-needed-lb3-0-338-bergers-57430/
Thanks!
Jeff
This was started right after I came in with drops at 700, 1042 and 1342 yards with the .338 Hybrids.
Here is a link.
http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f19/help-needed-lb3-0-338-bergers-57430/
Thanks!
Jeff
Very impressive fellas!
I'm surprised by the large jumps being successful with the Hybrids. I'm not used to jumping and would have wasted a lot of shots before I stumbled on it.
As for Exbal, I can hit the target using it but dropping the MV just seems wrong to make it work!
I'm like Broz, I just want to hit the target, but wake up in the middle of the night thinking about that MV drop thing.
I think Eaglet has the right understanding of things. Well, at least one that I agree with
Keep it goin' guys!
Roy, I tell you what, I wish I was as good of a shot as Jeff!!!!
Thanks for your kind workds.
Tyler Kemp
Well-Known Member
My OAL is 3.83", with .385" being to the lands. So they should fit for you, I have a fairly long throat.
