Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
On Paper Vs Ballistic Program
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Gustavo" data-source="post: 165330" data-attributes="member: 6"><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>Without a proper statistical model and correct inputs, under carefully controlled conditions, what we have are just wild guesses.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Gustavo, post: 165330, member: 6"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
On Paper Vs Ballistic Program
Top