On Paper Vs Ballistic Program

[Jeff In TX]

Shawn,

I can do amazing things with a ballistic program as I understand how they work and how to get the programs results to match my actual shooting data. What I can't do is reverse the process and get my actual shooting data to match my program data and that's what you're trying to do. It won't work.

I haven't played with the chrony ballistic program so I can't offer an opinion on how good or bad it is.

You need to shoot and record your actual POA to POI at 100 yard increments out to 300 yards. Beyond 300 yards, 50 yard increments work better than 100 yard increments. Again record your actual POA to POI. Don't touch your scope turrets. Just record how much drop you actually have at each yardage.

Now if you're a range a click guy like I am and realizing scope turrets are seldom exact, now figure out how many clicks your scope takes to get you to each 100 yard or 50 yard increment.

This way you have a range card to take hunting. Now you can take that data and work it into a ballistic program to get it to match your actual range data. Out to 350 yards even if you change altitude and temperature by a lot your actual field results won't be that far off.

Hope it helps

 

[Gustavo]

The problem I see with most of the "actual vs. predicted values" issue, is that it's never done with the appropiate parameters that must be considered, especially when it comes to long range.

Every artilleryman knows that parameters such as the dispersion of the gun must be included, as well as the inherent errors of the sight, the ammo, the input data, etc.

So I'm amazed when some people just compare actual vs field results and they don't correlate the way the expect it to do.

Not my intention to open a flamed debate, but almost any experiences as conducted by an individual, that does not have the right measurement equipment, the dispersion values, the shooter's errors etc are of almost no scientific value.

Without a proper statistical model and correct inputs, under carefully controlled conditions, what we have are just wild guesses.

And of course, to expect a great match without knowing how to setup a properly cared for experiment is at least not fair to any model, and as can be figured out, most especially at long range.

In short, if any program is within, say one MOA at medium to long ranges, without knowing nothing about the inherent errors that are customarily unknown to the shooter ( I mean quantified ) then we are in the presence of a good prediction.

 

[Jeff In TX]

The problem I see with most of the "actual vs. predicted values" issue, is that it's never done with the appropiate parameters that must be considered, especially when it comes to long range.

Every artilleryman knows that parameters such as the dispersion of the gun must be included, as well as the inherent errors of the sight, the ammo, the input data, etc.

So I'm amazed when some people just compare actual vs field results and they don't correlate the way the expect it to do.

Not my intention to open a flamed debate, but almost any experiences as conducted by an individual, that does not have the right measurement equipment, the dispersion values, the shooter's errors etc are of almost no scientific value.

Without a proper statistical model and correct inputs, under carefully controlled conditions, what we have are just wild guesses.

And of course, to expect a great match without knowing how to setup a properly cared for experiment is at least not fair to any model, and as can be figured out, most especially at long range.

In short, if any program is within, say one MOA at medium to long ranges, without knowing nothing about the inherent errors that are customarily unknown to the shooter ( I mean quantified ) then we are in the presence of a good prediction.

Gus,

Amen brother well said!