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
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Trueing muzzle velocity vs BC
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="WiscGunner" data-source="post: 2588034" data-attributes="member: 97288"><p>The simple reason that "truing" muzzle velocity is recommended in spite of accurate measuring instruments is because the mathematical model is inaccurately predicting the flight path. Plain and simple. Absolutely no way around it.</p><p></p><p>Now, does it work to shift the data in the model to misalign with reality a little so the end result is close enough in the middle range but off at close range and at far? …sure, for most people.</p><p>CDM are more like the old multiple "banded" BC method. Each band is a new hump in the theoretical arc course correct the model back inline with the actual arc of flight.</p><p></p><p>AB is NOT a very good predictive model and in-fact is no better the every other basic modeling app. Yes I said that. They have lots of fancy marketing and special buzz words and magic ways to calibrate it to be correct with incorrect data. Saying AB is a predictive modeling software is like saying Tesla is a car manufacturer. Both have a cult following yet neither is what the say on fave value. Tesla is a software company mapping roads and AB is historical modeling software that only gets "better" the more recorded real models are entered to offset the less accurate "predictions".</p><p></p><p> Not necessary with better math like Patagonia but there is a lot of effort, time and money invested in some of these popukar programs and that makes a very comprelling insentive to overlook the flaws.</p><p></p><p>Patagonia and Coldbore are actually able to make fairly accurate predictions with accurate data and are not heavily reliabt on a G1/G7 input. Vastly more accurate than standard 3DoF solvers like AB, BallisticsARC, Shooter, JBM, etc. tgat rely very heavily on the value input for BC. Hornady 4DoF doesn't use BC which is why they only list their bullets they have recorded drag curves thru Doppler.</p><p></p><p>But don't take my word for it as I am not an expert in this area, test it yourself. Enter the exact same data without so called "truing" into 3 different solvers Trasol (Coldbore math), Hornady 4DoF and any of the 3DoF versions listed above. Then launch some bullets at various distances out to real distance and compare actuals to predicted. Most people don't shoot far enough to see 3dof software fall aparts. Those that shoot much beyond 800-1000yrds will either need to start lying to their software, get different math or take lots of real world notes.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>At the end of the day, there a lot of ways to get hits on target as long as you understand the strengths and yes weaknesses of your "system"</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WiscGunner, post: 2588034, member: 97288"] The simple reason that “truing” muzzle velocity is recommended in spite of accurate measuring instruments is because the mathematical model is inaccurately predicting the flight path. Plain and simple. Absolutely no way around it. Now, does it work to shift the data in the model to misalign with reality a little so the end result is close enough in the middle range but off at close range and at far? …sure, for most people. CDM are more like the old multiple “banded” BC method. Each band is a new hump in the theoretical arc course correct the model back inline with the actual arc of flight. AB is NOT a very good predictive model and in-fact is no better the every other basic modeling app. Yes I said that. They have lots of fancy marketing and special buzz words and magic ways to calibrate it to be correct with incorrect data. Saying AB is a predictive modeling software is like saying Tesla is a car manufacturer. Both have a cult following yet neither is what the say on fave value. Tesla is a software company mapping roads and AB is historical modeling software that only gets “better” the more recorded real models are entered to offset the less accurate “predictions”. Not necessary with better math like Patagonia but there is a lot of effort, time and money invested in some of these popukar programs and that makes a very comprelling insentive to overlook the flaws. Patagonia and Coldbore are actually able to make fairly accurate predictions with accurate data and are not heavily reliabt on a G1/G7 input. Vastly more accurate than standard 3DoF solvers like AB, BallisticsARC, Shooter, JBM, etc. tgat rely very heavily on the value input for BC. Hornady 4DoF doesn’t use BC which is why they only list their bullets they have recorded drag curves thru Doppler. But don’t take my word for it as I am not an expert in this area, test it yourself. Enter the exact same data without so called “truing” into 3 different solvers Trasol (Coldbore math), Hornady 4DoF and any of the 3DoF versions listed above. Then launch some bullets at various distances out to real distance and compare actuals to predicted. Most people don’t shoot far enough to see 3dof software fall aparts. Those that shoot much beyond 800-1000yrds will either need to start lying to their software, get different math or take lots of real world notes. At the end of the day, there a lot of ways to get hits on target as long as you understand the strengths and yes weaknesses of your “system” [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Trueing muzzle velocity vs BC
Top