Dialing vs. Holdover For Long Range Hunting

[bigngreen]

Where can we find more information on x-ring?

 

[THEIS]

Hello,

Just so you guys understand a little about who Dr. Hazelton is..and his ballistic programs and expertise.

Steve Reichert uses him as instructor for the SRT ballistic course.
Fredrik Jonsson --Maritime sniper expert and author of Maritime Sniper Manual uses the AIM-E program.
Tacflow Academy uses a proprietary program from Dr Hazelton for their Moving Platform training programs.

AIM-E Brochure http://www.empyrealsciences.com/AIM-EBrochure.pdf

Here is summary of Dr Hazletons experience. http://www.empyrealsciences.com/library/images/Resume_Hazelton.pdf
Nothing against Brian but Dr. Hazleton is really on a different level. Brian is more sport oriented, while Dr. Hazelton is more military oriented.

THEIS

 

[bigngreen]

Any specifics on the X-ring since it's a civilian version by what we're reading here?

 

[985]

Eric, it's becoming difficult to appreciate your input. But tell me, what are Mr Litz's credentials?
Also, would you be so kind as to take a comparative look at the code & equations of AB and ATRAG and let me / us know what you discover? Thanks

 

[985]

THEIS: Very Well Said.

 

[Danehunter]

Guys,

I've looked at the "AIM-E" site and read (and re-read) the info.

Bryan Litz, as I'm sure you know, is an aerospace engineer with a specialty in ballistics. His rifle ammunition ballistic software is the result of using doppler radar to check real world (as opposed to theoretical) performance of hundreds of bullets in literally hundreds of weights, calibers and shapes at various ranges in the bullets' flight.

How is AIM-E different and better than Litz's work? I truly am trying to find the BEST rifle ballistic software.

Eric B.

 

[985]

Litehiker,

I think, (could be wrong) however I believe that Mr. Litz has a Bachelor's Degree in Engineering. He is apparently a very capable engineer; capable of utilizing existing documentation such as one would find in Mr. Robert McCoy's book, "Modern Exterior Ballistics." However, compiling data is not piercing the bubble to solutions, writing new equations or making the future; it is however, an attempt to imitate and or modify the existing. Measuring drag curves through Doppler is one thing, however, obtaining a drag curve that is functional is another. Why then would AB have data entry points to cheat / fudge the drag curve? Because the attempt to solve the issue is a fail. Again, I simply ask you to investigate the code of AB and ATRAG. Start there.

 

[Greyfox]

Having spent 40 years in the scientific/analytical instrument industry, I thoroughly enjoy threads like this one. My only thoughts on the recent posts concerning scientific credentials as a barometer for credibility, certainty, and ultimate market success in a given application, would be to excercise caution. The MIT guys are brilliant and have contributed significantly to advancing technology, but their innovations generally need to be adapted and tailored to the desired application. It's also safe to say that as many innovations and discoveries have come out of lesser credentialed practicians.
Getting back to the original topic, for hunting applications, most of available algorithms seem to match and work fine out to the practical LRH limits. Whether you dial or use a reticle hold.....do what works for you. I'll have to agree with Bryan Litz that the challenge continues to be the management of the two indeterminates; "wind", and the "continuity of the specific cartridge" being fired. For LRH, these can easily trump any hair splitting over choice of algorithms IMO.

 

[985]

Greyfox, People know the truth when they hear it. I concur with your statement about "Hunting applications." AB is good enough. However, for many reasons it isn't for long range shooting.

If one sets aside the approach to fudging the drag curve, the code similarities (if not identical) to sixty year old code, the differences between AB and X-ring are draconian in nature. It's truly apples to oranges. Do you really think that AB is in any way similar to missile system software?

I'm surprised to hear you say that you have spent forty years in the scientific industry, and yet, you overlook the mantissa / hardware issues. It is IMPOSSIBLE to obtain a Coriolis solution when utilizing AB; yet most shooters who have attended my courses who use AB utilize the Coriolis subroutine. That routine produces errors 100% of the time, yet the shooters haven't a clue... They miss, they go back to their software, try to figure out what went wrong, then miss again. We get them straightened out.

"You should not teach the philosophies of man mingled with scientific facts."

Not to boast, however, if you are seeking a long range shooting Phd, come out to the Mountain Shooting Center and take one of our long range mountain shooting course(s). You Will be glad that you did.

 

[bigngreen]

Would you please point us to a source of information on X-ring, I'm always looking for better solutions and I keep seeing hint dropping but I would like to get beyond the dropping of insider hints and find where I can get into this!

 

[985]

bigingreen, folow this link to empyreal. They own and sell X-Ring. http://www.empyrealsciences.com/AIM-EBrochure.pdf

 

[Greyfox]

Greyfox, People know the truth when they hear it. I concur with your statement about "Hunting applications." AB is good enough. However, for many reasons it isn't for long range shooting.

If one sets aside the approach to fudging the drag curve, the code similarities (if not identical) to sixty year old code, the differences between AB and X-ring are draconian in nature. It's truly apples to oranges. Do you really think that AB is in any way similar to missile system software?

I'm surprised to hear you say that you have spent forty years in the scientific industry, and yet, you overlook the mantissa / hardware issues. It is IMPOSSIBLE to obtain a Coriolis solution when utilizing AB; yet most shooters who have attended my courses who use AB utilize the Coriolis subroutine. That routine produces errors 100% of the time, yet the shooters haven't a clue... They miss, they go back to their software, try to figure out what went wrong, then miss again. We get them straightened out.

"You should not teach the philosophies of man mingled with scientific facts."

Not to boast, however, if you are seeking a long range shooting Phd, come out to the Mountain Shooting Center and take one of our long range mountain shooting course(s). You Will be glad that you did.

WWB, I don't think there is much disagreement between us, and I don't believe I made the claim that X-Ring was in any way equivalent or inferior to other solutions. As a matter of fact I'm intriqued by the product. As you seem to concur, AB and other products available will suffice for long range hunting applications. If I do ever find myself in need of acquiring a "PhD" in long range shooting Illgive you a call.
" in shooting

 

[985]

You should come out anyway.

 

[Deleted member 46119]

How did this become a Hazelton vs Litz argument?

Please lets return to techniques vs who makes better software.

Per WWBs own statement:

My holdover technique is a combat approach, and much different than precision hold overs, (which I don't believe in). But, IF you want to have some fun, come out!

WWB: what is the difference between your combat approach vs a precision approach and why is it you "don't believe in" a precision approach for long range hunting?