Hornady 4DOF Ballistic Program

[BergerFan222]

We (AB) also have a product to promote. Our product is unbiased information, and at the end of the day, we are judged and paid according to how helpful and accurate our information has been to people. In our business, we can't do 'brand loyalty'. We can't bend facts for advertising. Our business is 'fact loyalty'. Again, it doesn't mean we are good or bad, right or wrong. It's just something a critical thinker will consider when hearing all sides.

-Bryan

When can we expect a new WEZ analysis (and revised articles) for the 230 OTM?

The use of the (early estimate) G7 BC of 0.380 certainly gives less accurate WEZ results considering the G7 BC was revised to 0.364. Using the higher BC in WEZ articles comparing the 230 OTM with competing brands creates the impression that "brand loyalty" may be more important than "unbiased information."

See:

http://www.bergerbullets.com/images/articles/WEZ_300_Win_Mag.pdf

http://www.appliedballisticsllc.com/Articles/ABDOC116_2_300_338_Rev1.pdf

 

[BryanLitz]

That's a good observation, I'm glad you brought that up because it gives me the opportunity to explain something important.

All bullet manufacturers have lot-to-lot variations in bullet dimensions and BC's. Berger is no exception.

The big question is: how much lot variation exists?

We test fire every lot of Berger Bullets for BC so I have a very thorough knowledge of our lot variation. On occasion I've also tested multiple lots of the same bullet from other brands but not as extensively. My observation is that most companies have far greater lot variation than Berger.

The answer to your question is that this is an unfortunate case of extreme lot variation for this particular bullet (extreme for Berger). When lot testing bullets for BC, and updating the published value, the question arises; do you publish the running average, or the latest BC tested? The original number for this bullet (.380) was based on the first test. The lower number (.364) is 4.2% lower and represents (at the time the BC was revised), the lowest number ever tested. At this time, many lots have been tested and the average BC is hovering around .375.

.375 is 3% higher than .364, and 1.3% lower than .380. So the .380 that's used in that WEZ analysis from 4 years ago is actually very close to the running average today. It was very unfortunate that when we did the last BC update, the most recent test was .364, and at that time we were pushing the 'latest' tested number. Based on further consideration and especially because of this 230 Hybrid example, we'll be publishing the running average from now on.

Bear in mind that our resolution in measuring BC is +/- 1%, which is pretty good. Most lots test within +/-2%. The higher BC bullets are harder to nail down, and the 230 Hybrid is a pretty high BC bullet.

So to address your question, it's not the WEZ analysis from 4 years ago based on .380 that needs corrected, it's the currently advertised BC of .364 that will be corrected. I suppose you could argue that the entire WEZ analysis should be re-done to reflect a BC of .375 vs. .380. In fact the BC's of every bullet that was ever considered in any ballistic analysis might have a more accurately measured or actually different BC today than when the article was written. Every article can't be re-written every time a BC changes by 1% or 2%. We simply make the correction and base all future work on the more accurate data.

Sometimes, being committed to the facts requires us to lift up our skirt a little more than is comfortable. Those who would spin bad things up for us could read this post and grab on to the statement that 'Berger has lot variation', and call us girls for wearing skirts.

But we're not here for those people. We're here for guys like you who are trying to learn, improve and are asking good questions. You deserve straight and complete answers.

-Bryan

 

[BergerFan222]

But we're not here for those people. We're here for guys like you who are trying to learn, improve and are asking good questions. You deserve straight and complete answers.

-Bryan

Make sense. Thanks for the detailed response. Maybe Hornady realizes that all bullets have some lot to lot variation and provided the "axial form factor" feature to help handle drag variations with lots in addition to different rifle barrels.

In any event, I appreciate the more moderate tone of the discussion in the past couple of days compared with some of the opening salvos. AB has certainly contributed a lot to improved ballistics information, but Hornady has also. As folks digest the new 4DOF, it helps to keep the signal to noise ratio high.

In many ways I am happy that AB's response prompted Hornady to provide greater technical detail on what the 4DOF is doing.

 

[Bullseye]

That's not what was claimed. However, that can definitely be the case, depends on how knowledgeable the people running that 6 figure system are. In a prefect world, maybe, but barely, to the extent that its a moot point really. It is a lot more difficult to derive accurate results from that complex system than the system AB uses. We can attain very accurate data relatively easily and is why we have a large database of very accurate drag curves.

But all of that is beside the point. Our data with our system is already pretty much as accurate as with the doppler. The difference, and what is being claimed by Hornady, is that they are getting data from the radar to use in their "4th DOF" which calculates spin drift and aerodynamic jump. This is false because the data required for those calculations can not be derived from the radar data. The AB solver uses dedicated equations that have been repeatedly tested and tuned through live fire testing, but not just shooting over a microphone or radar because that doesn't do anything for these aspects, to calculate spindrift and aerodynamic jump very accurately. Hornady estimates the various coefficients needed for their "4th DOF". So, you have a claimed "more precise" system that is based on estimates. Precision and estimates don't generally go hand in hand. Especially when there are already highly accurate methods being used that don't rely on estimations.

Long story short, practically the radar isn't any more accurate than the system AB uses. And it doesn't do anything for Hornady's claims. People need to understand that "6 figure doppler measuring system" is pretty much a marketing phrase and that it isn't real special. It measure the exact same thing we measure with acoustic's, and that's it.

"Doppler radar measurement is the undisputed Cadillac of credibility for measuring bullet performance…" Litz (2009) "Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting" p. 25.
To state that a Doppler radar is no more accurate than an acoustic microphone system is incredulous. A Doppler radar runs at 10 to 35 GHZ, outputting up to 15 watts and is capable of tracking a projectile to extremely long ranges with resolution vastly exceeding any acoustic microphone system. Doppler radar is a primary tool used by facilities such as the Yuma Proving Grounds, the Naval Surface Warfare Center, the Air Force Weapons Lab at Eglin AFB and the Army Ballistics Research Lab at Aberdeen, MD for very good reason; they provide accurate data better than any other method. The ability of a Doppler radar has proven to be vastly superior to acoustic microphones.
Applied Ballistics further suggests that a Radar system is only as good as the people using it. That is an affront. Rest assured that Hornady ballisticians are more than capable of extrapolating Doppler radar information. Dave Emary was involved in ballistic research as far back as the 1980's and 90's with hyper velocity ballistics work for the Army, Navy and several major government labs that included Doppler radar use even back then. Hornady ballisticians have more than enough experience to be able to effectively use a Doppler radar.
A simple search of the Infinition and Weibel websites will reveal that radar gives both velocity and distance data as well as detailed drag data. The systems are also capable of measuring spin rate AND spin decay of a projectile. This is common practice.
Lastly, Hornady has been incorrectly quoted as claiming that they are the FIRST to calculate Aerodynamic Jump and Spin Drift. That is a misquote. The exact quote is: "Additionally, (4DOF) it is the first PUBLICLY available program that will CORRECTLY calculate the vertical shift a bullet experiences as it encounters a crosswind; referred to as aerodynamic jump." Hornady® Announces New Drag Coefficient Based Ballistic Calculator - Hornady Manufacturing, Inc It is implied that "publicly available" insinuates use by civilians in the shooting sports industry. Hornady was careful in choosing the verbiage regarding the 4DOF calculator press release and marketing.
Hornady and other beta testers have evaluated the 4DOF calculator head to head with other commercially available calculators out to 2,000 yards. All users reported data consistent with Hornady claims regarding the accuracy of the 4DOF calculator.
Don't shoot the messenger because you don't like the message. Hornady has a calculator, Advanced Ballistics has a calculator; we'll let the shooters decide which calculator provides the best results.

 

[BryanLitz]

Radar technology has the potential to be 'all that'. But not all radar's are not created equal.

The unit shown in Hornady's videos is a Infinition BR-29015 BR-29015

It states a max range of 800m-1000m for 5.56mm rounds.

It is not capable of gathering all the complex data that some more expensive, multi-frequency radar systems with tracking heads, etc.

Any tool is only as good as the people using it, and the tool.

Hornady's promotion claims their radar can, in good conditions, reach to a mile (1760 yards). Earlier this year, we employed our 'low cost' acoustic system to measure time of flight with +/-0.0005 ms resolution at 2400 yards.

Once again, the issue here isn't with the potential of Radar vs. other technologies. The issue is with false claims made under the guise of marketing hype. Anything they've stated that's true, we aren't taking issue with.

This has turned into something it was never intended to be.

 

[Bullseye]

Radar technology has the potential to be 'all that'. But not all radar's are not created equal.

The unit shown in Hornady's videos is a Infinition BR-29015 BR-29015

It states a max range of 800m-1000m for 5.56mm rounds.

It is not capable of gathering all the complex data that some more expensive, multi-frequency radar systems with tracking heads, etc.

Any tool is only as good as the people using it, and the tool.

Hornady's promotion claims their radar can, in good conditions, reach to a mile (1760 yards). Earlier this year, we employed our 'low cost' acoustic system to measure time of flight with +/-0.0005 ms resolution at 2400 yards.

Once again, the issue here isn't with the potential of Radar vs. other technologies. The issue is with false claims made under the guise of marketing hype. Anything they've stated that's true, we aren't taking issue with.

This has turned into something it was never intended to be.

Let's have a short discussion on how the data acquisition systems in question actually work and make sure there are no misunderstandings or incomplete or misleading information in play.
Acoustic detectors work by detecting the shock waves signature, crack if you will, from a supersonic projectile. By virtue of the physics in play they are unable to detect or measure anything once the bullet goes subsonic, 1,116 fps at standard sea level conditions.
The range to which a radar can track a projectile is dependent on a number of things, the power output, the antenna gain, the beam width, the signal to noise ratio (SNR) and very importantly the Radar Cross Section (RCS) of the object it is measuring. The RCS in the case of projectiles, is essentially the diameter of the projectile. The larger the diameter of the projectile the greater distance it can track it. The SNR is a variable that depends on weather, atmospheric conditions and clutter such as leaves on trees, anything that will scatter the radar beam. Under favorable conditions, cold air, no leaves on the trees and a clean range a very low SNR exists and the range of the radar can be extended up to 10%. Firing over a calm lake would be ideal.
Let's examine the specific case Mr. Litz brings up. They used their acoustic detectors to get a time of flight (TOF) measurement of a .375" diameter projectile at 2,400 yards. That is a significant accomplishment. That's a substantial undertaking that requires some preparation and some good equipment. What they got was one piece of one data point, TOF at 2,400 yards. No velocity measurement, no drag or projectile deceleration data; one TOF measurement. They would have to make some assumptions in order to calculate a retained velocity.
The alleged, low cost and incapable radar that Hornady uses will measure a .375" projectile to 2,700 yards, give or take a little, under typical conditions. This radar unit is the standard in this industry and has been made by Weibel, TERMA and now infinition, who now owns TERMA, since the early 1980's Under favorable SNR conditions about 3,000 yards. In that 2,700 yards it would gather 650, give or take a few, data points, including 75 to 100 transonic and subsonic data points. For every data point we would have: measured velocity, TOF and distance. We would also have a very high resolution projectile drag and deceleration curve for the projectile. All of this would allow a knowledgeable ballistician to discern a number of things about the performance of the projectile, abnormal drag characteristics, magnus and projectile dynamic instability effects, etc. etc.
By the way the multi frequency, tracking radars Mr. Litz mentions start in the million dollar price tag range and go up. They need to be either permanently mounted or are put on a large truck. In short, pretty much the domain of government entities or the military.

I leave it to the reader to form their own opinion about who is and isn't being misleading.

As to Mr. Litz's closing comment I will also leave to reader to form his own opinion about that.

 

[Bullseye]

Radar technology has the potential to be 'all that'. But not all radar's are not created equal.

The unit shown in Hornady's videos is a Infinition BR-29015 BR-29015

It states a max range of 800m-1000m for 5.56mm rounds.

It is not capable of gathering all the complex data that some more expensive, multi-frequency radar systems with tracking heads, etc.

Any tool is only as good as the people using it, and the tool.

Hornady's promotion claims their radar can, in good conditions, reach to a mile (1760 yards). Earlier this year, we employed our 'low cost' acoustic system to measure time of flight with +/-0.0005 ms resolution at 2400 yards.

Once again, the issue here isn't with the potential of Radar vs. other technologies. The issue is with false claims made under the guise of marketing hype. Anything they've stated that's true, we aren't taking issue with.

This has turned into something it was never intended to be.

"The Hornady® 4DOF™ calculator provides trajectory solutions based on projectile Drag Coefficient (not ballistic coefficient) along with the exact physical modelling of the projectile and its mass and aerodynamic properties. Additionally, it is the first publicly available program that will CORRECTLY calculate the vertical shift a bullet experiences as it encounters a crosswind; referred to as aerodynamic jump."
The equations of motion based calculation for aerodynamic jump requires the use of aerodynamic coefficients such as Normal Force, Axial Force, Pitching Moment, inertial properties, and more. A modified point mass solver with a minimum of 4 Degrees of Freedom is required to use these coefficients in the equation of motion based correct calculation of aerodynamic jump.
The proper calculation of spin drift also requires many of the same aerodynamic coefficients to be used. Current methods employing either empirical shooting data, curve fitting, or baseline equations such as the Miller stability formula ignore certain aspects of the actual physics that cause these phenomena to occur. Although this does not absolutely speak to the accuracy of prediction of these alternate methods, Hornady did not write the book on the calculations used in the 4DOF. This work was done more than 50 years ago by names such as Robert McCoy, Bob Whyte, and Wayne Hathaway to name a few. The 4DOF is the first to offer a publicly available, free of charge, solver to correctly calculate aerodynamic jump, and spin drift based on the equations of motion in combination with drag calculations based on actual Doppler measured TOTAL DRAG (Cd vs Mach) for each specific projectile.
Hornady does gather these aerodynamic coefficients from PRODAS models of the specific projectile. PRODAS gathers these coefficients in a way similar to that of how BC compares a specific bullets drag to a standard. Unlike BC though, a large database of spark range data is used to compare unique features of the projectile being modeled to measured aerodynamic coefficients of spark range tested projectiles. It should be noted, that the predictive abilities of PRODAS were updated in 2004 and are within the error of the spark range measured data for their respective coefficients.

 

[BryanLitz]

Let's have a short discussion on how the data acquisition systems in question actually work and make sure there are no misunderstandings or incomplete or misleading information in play.
Acoustic detectors work by detecting the shock waves signature, crack if you will, from a supersonic projectile. By virtue of the physics in play they are unable to detect or measure anything once the bullet goes subsonic, 1,116 fps at standard sea level conditions.

That's not true. By attaching the acoustic microphone to a hard target, you can detect tof even for subsonic rounds with very high resolution.

The range to which a radar can track a projectile is dependent on a number of things, the power output, the antenna gain, the beam width, the signal to noise ratio (SNR) and very importantly the Radar Cross Section (RCS) of the object it is measuring. The RCS in the case of projectiles, is essentially the diameter of the projectile. The larger the diameter of the projectile the greater distance it can track it. The SNR is a variable that depends on weather, atmospheric conditions and clutter such as leaves on trees, anything that will scatter the radar beam. Under favorable conditions, cold air, no leaves on the trees and a clean range a very low SNR exists and the range of the radar can be extended up to 10%. Firing over a calm lake would be ideal.
Let's examine the specific case Mr. Litz brings up. They used their acoustic detectors to get a time of flight (TOF) measurement of a .375" diameter projectile at 2,400 yards. That is a significant accomplishment. That's a substantial undertaking that requires some preparation and some good equipment. What they got was one piece of one data point, TOF at 2,400 yards. No velocity measurement, no drag or projectile deceleration data; one TOF measurement. They would have to make some assumptions in order to calculate a retained velocity.

We did measure MV and all other variables required to calculate the bullet's performance. You can criticize all you want, but with just a couple weeks preparation with a brand new bullet, our characterization of the bullets performance in the AB solver was accurate enough to put FIRST SHOTS on targets out to 2400+ yards.

The alleged, low cost and incapable radar that Hornady uses will measure a .375" projectile to 2,700 yards, give or take a little, under typical conditions. This radar unit is the standard in this industry and has been made by Weibel, TERMA and now infinition, who now owns TERMA, since the early 1980's Under favorable SNR conditions about 3,000 yards. In that 2,700 yards it would gather 650, give or take a few, data points, including 75 to 100 transonic and subsonic data points. For every data point we would have: measured velocity, TOF and distance.

actually, all the radar measures directly is velocity. tof comes from a clock, and distance is a derived, not measured quantity.

We would also have a very high resolution projectile drag and deceleration curve for the projectile. All of this would allow a knowledgeable ballistician to discern a number of things about the performance of the projectile, abnormal drag characteristics, magnus and projectile dynamic instability effects, etc. etc.

How could you separate out the zero yaw drag coefficient from the yaw dependent drag with just a radar?

By the way the multi frequency, tracking radars Mr. Litz mentions start in the million dollar price tag range and go up. They need to be either permanently mounted or are put on a large truck. In short, pretty much the domain of government entities or the military.

I was describing these radars because you pulled out my reference from 2005 about radar being the cadillac of drag measurement. The best radar is all that. Hornady's radar is the budget model, and it's not capable of all the stuff we you were describing about radar in general.

I leave it to the reader to form their own opinion about who is and isn't being misleading.

As to Mr. Litz's closing comment I will also leave to reader to form his own opinion about that.

My objective is to help those readers who are interested in learning. If the truth of things upsets anyone then you don't have to read my posts. If anyone can demonstrate anything I'm saying that's untrue, I'll be happy to correct it. But if you're just arguing because you don't like it, I don't know what else to tell you.

-Bryan

 

[BryanLitz]

"The Hornady® 4DOF™ calculator provides trajectory solutions based on projectile Drag Coefficient (not ballistic coefficient) along with the exact physical modelling of the projectile and its mass and aerodynamic properties. Additionally, it is the first publicly available program that will CORRECTLY calculate the vertical shift a bullet experiences as it encounters a crosswind; referred to as aerodynamic jump."

As previously stated, the issue with the above statement is 'first publicly available...' It is not the first public solver to calculate AJ. If you're clinging to the word 'correctly', that is a marketing twist. A prediction of AJ from a MPM solver is still a prediction. Until it's demonstrated to be more accurate than an alternative prediction, it's quite presumptuous to say it's the first one to do it correctly.

The equations of motion based calculation for aerodynamic jump requires the use of aerodynamic coefficients such as Normal Force, Axial Force, Pitching Moment, inertial properties, and more. A modified point mass solver with a minimum of 4 Degrees of Freedom is required to use these coefficients in the equation of motion based correct calculation of aerodynamic jump.
The proper calculation of spin drift also requires many of the same aerodynamic coefficients to be used. Current methods employing either empirical shooting data, curve fitting, or baseline equations such as the Miller stability formula ignore certain aspects of the actual physics that cause these phenomena to occur. Although this does not absolutely speak to the accuracy of prediction of these alternate methods, Hornady did not write the book on the calculations used in the 4DOF. This work was done more than 50 years ago by names such as Robert McCoy, Bob Whyte, and Wayne Hathaway to name a few.

So then how can Hornady patent a 4DOF solver if we agree it's been around so long?

The 4DOF is the first to offer a publicly available, free of charge, solver to correctly calculate aerodynamic jump, and spin drift based on the equations of motion in combination with drag calculations based on actual Doppler measured TOTAL DRAG (Cd vs Mach) for each specific projectile.
Hornady does gather these aerodynamic coefficients from PRODAS models of the specific projectile. PRODAS gathers these coefficients in a way similar to that of how BC compares a specific bullets drag to a standard. Unlike BC though, a large database of spark range data is used to compare unique features of the projectile being modeled to measured aerodynamic coefficients of spark range tested projectiles. It should be noted, that the predictive abilities of PRODAS were updated in 2004 and are within the error of the spark range measured data for their respective coefficients.

Estimates of aero coefficients from PRODAS are still estimates.

I'm sure it's taken the guys at Hornady a lot of work to create the 4DOF solver, and much more work to create the library of bullet models. Of all people I understand and appreciate how much work that is! Those guys should be proud of what they've done. They should also be careful not to let the marketing get out of hand and tarnish a good thing with false claims.

I see this all too often with bullets which advertise inflated BC's. Everyone wants them tested, so we test them and publish the real performance and if it's less than advertised, that bullet maker is in a PR hole. Unfortunately, even if the bullets are good and have respectable BC's, the story becomes: inflated performance. That's where Hornady is now. They have something that might be good, but are suffering from over hyping it with false information which unfortunately overwhelms the good.

Over the years I've written all kinds of solvers including 6-DOF, 3-DOF and many in between. Here's an example of my 6-DOF solver that we published in 2009: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH9SCbCBHaY
Of course when providing solvers to the market (apps, websites, and all kinds of devices that solvers have to run on) we heavily considered all options. We settled on our current approach not because we weren't aware of MPM and 6DOF solvers, but because we believed our approach was best for the various applications and over the years that has proven to be true.

My hat's off to Hornady's engineers for elevating their ballistics game, but don't let the marketing sell you on them becoming the leaders in this area overnight.

-Bryan

 

[cjwise5]

Bryan,
I have no skin in this game at all, but have been enjoying the banter. All I want to say is that I really appreciate your humble and truthful approach. Keep taking the high road. I'm nobody, but you are earning my respect. Hornady will keep some of my business. People like Frank G. have been losing my respect over the years by constantly stirring up dissension and just generally being too prideful. Thx.

 

[AaronSkipDavidson]

I'm a third party observer to this. I wish the Hornady team was able to man the forums as well as Bryan and his team. Filtering responses to claims of "twisted and false" is probably not direct enough.

Hopefully, the reader understands what is going on here. Frankly, I don't think I've ever seen anything like it in ten years of industry work. It's really hard for me to post here on this topic because I do have a really good relationship with Hornady, and I've been a part of their move into the long range shooting market. What everyone doesn't realize is that Bryan and I have worked together on a ballistic project as well. He is correct that he has made functioning solvers of all types, but the reader needs to understand that the mathematics behind the different methods are basically open source. I've interviewed college graduates that have create the same programs using these solvers, if you have the math backgound, its pretty simple stuff.

The real contribution a company can make (like AB or Hornady) is the application of routines that simplify the inputs a 6DOF program requires to calculate a near perfect solution. When we started 10 years ago, I used a solver I bought from James Millard (JBM) to create our turret marking software, and to publish an online solver that iteratively adjusted BC or Muzzle Velocity to match drop data from live shooting. It was a pretty new concept. The idea was really offensive to ballistics guys. It's brute force at best. I remember having the philosophical argument with Bryan. He felt (correctly) that establishing a consistent BC measurement routine was vital, he had just published his first edition. I think what Bryan contributed was excellent, but I also believe that he has matured his position on truing data. His new Kestrel products have advanced methods for truing. Even his measured BC's are still subject to truing. The reason isn't because his methods are bad or that the solver has issues, its because each individual rifle has different behavior. Just simple things like twist rate and land/groove configuration can effect the drag characteristics of a bullet.

Putting all the argumentative statements aside, the real development here is that hornady is measuring/generating a characteristic CD vs Mach profile of a bullet. Bryan agrees with the importance of this, because that is "advanced methodology" he's pushing with his solver. Custom Drag Profiles aren't limited to comparative performance against the G1 or G7 profiles. Theoretically, they match what that bullet is actually doing. Even though they are customized to the bullet, these drag profiles will still need trued to the gun to accommodate individual systems (either Hornady or Applied Ballistics!).

Ok, so we have one major difference. Hornady is measuring and publishing their custom drag profiles based on radar methodologies, and AB is doing the same with acoustic methodologies. They can both argue until they are blue (or red) in the face about which one is better, I'm not sure I really care. If they work as good as I can shoot, it probably doesn't matter. However, I can see Hornadys perspective, and would liken it to the chronograph situation, if I want really good MV data, I use a Labradar, not a Stienhart Sensing Systems acoustical chrono - Bryans book confirms this choice.

The second difference is where it gets into the weeds, and I definitely couldn't walk you through the math, so I'll render into the simplest form that I can. It has to do with the calculation of Aerodynamic Jump, Corriolis, Eovtos, and Spin Drift. Bryan has created analytical models, algorithms, that relate the effects of the aforementioned phenomena to basic, easy to identify input parameters like twist rate, latitude, etc. From the standpoint of programming, this is much easier to implement than solving a 6dof set of equations. Less computations, and less power consumption. Is it perfect, no. Does it work better than most of us can shoot? I think so!

Hornady hasn't spent as much time marketing (publishing) their exact methods, so I'm reading between the lines. (and will accept correction if necessary). Hornady is measuring what they can with the radar, then using PRODAS to estimate the coefficients required to solve a more complex system of equations (4DOF). I'm not quite sure what Bryan's argument is. Perhaps that this methodology is not accurate enough? I'm not sure. I do know the guys behind this development, and they are not first timers....Hornady, on the other hand, believes this methodology is an improvement over Bryans use of a simpler set of equations combined with his highly developed analytical models. These are the claims that have excited the AB camp like knocking down a wasp nest! If it's true, the industry will move the direction of Hornady's methods, if it's not, or the improvement doesn't matter, it may stay where it's at.

I think fundamentally, the customized nature of the drag curve and coefficients (even if generated by PRODAS) derived from the radar data is truly the direction the industry will move. We'll see if Bryan and AB go the route of the radar or remain with their proprietary system. My next solver will hopefully feature Hornady bullet files!

This unprofessional attempt to discredit Hornady is unbecoming, even if the battle is only against their marketing department. The engineering staff, and underlying science is sound.

Claiming unprofessional behavior is acceptable because you share truth with the public is a ridiculous position. If Hornady makes their method stick, it could affect your dominance of the market. Competition is a threat, but it will also drive a company to excel. After Hornady has shared its process to the public, let's let a third party without the financial stake evaluate. In the meantime, let's let the public use it and shoot it.

Long and windy, sorry. I'm out....

 

[Canadian Bushman]

Im amazed at the people who will jump up on hornady's behalf, facts unknown, to teach a aerospace engineer, who built his reputation designing missles, how hornady's "new" 4dof is so superior to anything else that has been created.

Especially since bryan has gone so freaking far out of his way to run thousands of retardedly complex equations, and countless more experiments to settle our silliest questions. Hell he even has a sub forum just so he can personally answer the same 5 questions over and over.

Wheres hornady at? A vague press release, "trust us its better."

You guys are impossible to please. Just children yelling at men, who built the wheel from sticks and stones, saying they did it wrong.

 

[Dread264]

Im amazed at the people who will jump up on hornady's behalf, facts unknown, to teach a aerospace engineer, who built his reputation designing missles, how hornady's "new" 4dof is so superior to anything else that has been created.

Especially since bryan has gone so freaking far out of his way to run thousands of retardedly complex equations, and countless more experiments to settle our silliest questions. Hell he even has a sub forum just so he can personally answer the same 5 questions over and over.

Wheres hornady at? A vague press release, "trust us its better."

You guys are impossible to please. Just children yelling at men, who built the wheel from sticks and stones, saying they did it wrong.

Yea because Dave Emary is just some nobody...
Outdoor Life™ Names Dave Emary Among Most Influential People - Hornady Manufacturing, Inc


That's part of the unprofessionalism that's been displayed.

 

[Barrelnut]

^^^ Like ^^^

He is also a very accomplished marksman.

I like that AB does other bullets besides Berger. I shoot Nosler and Sierra. I like that AB has correct data for those bullets too.

I did notice that Hornady listed a couple Berger bullets with their new tool, but it won't be much use to me if the main focus on the tool is just their products.