TMR
Official LRH Sponsor
I can't seem to get my version of the reloaders archive to get beyond 2000 yds.
-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
Need a long range ballistic program.......
- Thread starter Fiftydriver
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
TMR
Official LRH Sponsor
Kirby,
The version of exbal I have for my pocket pc goes beyond 4000 yds in the drop table mode. Not sure if this is different than yours or not.
The version of exbal I have for my pocket pc goes beyond 4000 yds in the drop table mode. Not sure if this is different than yours or not.
Michael Eichele
Well-Known Member
Youre right. The 4000 yards in the picture above is work in progress.
Fiftydriver
Official LRH Sponsor
One thing for sure, no matter what program I use in the end, it appears that if we can get the 300 Allen Magnum to hit the projected performance numbers, staying over supersonic velocity over 3200 yards will not be a problem in any way!!!
Kirby Allen(50)
Kirby Allen(50)
Gustavo
Well-Known Member
I see too many differences in the downrange values of every program I'm aware of past 2000 yards...
Honestly, I cannot trust those figures, in fact I think they are way off the real world.
I'm a developer too of ballistics programs ( soon to be released ) and no matter how much I'd love to have an accurate predictor for those ranges...there is no model capable of yielding accurate values...
On the other hand, are we shhoting rifles or artillery?
Honestly, I cannot trust those figures, in fact I think they are way off the real world.
I'm a developer too of ballistics programs ( soon to be released ) and no matter how much I'd love to have an accurate predictor for those ranges...there is no model capable of yielding accurate values...
On the other hand, are we shhoting rifles or artillery?
Michael Eichele
Well-Known Member
Gustavo,
You are correct in that it is so hard to predict what a bullet will do even when using a calculator. So what good are they? Well thats why a shooter MUST first get real world results at the rages he wants to shoot. Then he makes the calculator match his results. So then why do we need a calculator then?? Because once we have a match to our real world data, the next time we go out it may be hotter or colder, higher or lower and the pressure has likely changed. Now all we have to do is adjust the atmoshperic conditions and we can now accuratly predict where are bullets will hit becuase our drag function and BC input numbers stay as a constant.
You are correct in that it is so hard to predict what a bullet will do even when using a calculator. So what good are they? Well thats why a shooter MUST first get real world results at the rages he wants to shoot. Then he makes the calculator match his results. So then why do we need a calculator then?? Because once we have a match to our real world data, the next time we go out it may be hotter or colder, higher or lower and the pressure has likely changed. Now all we have to do is adjust the atmoshperic conditions and we can now accuratly predict where are bullets will hit becuase our drag function and BC input numbers stay as a constant.
Gustavo
Well-Known Member
Michael,
I agree 100% with your post.
BTW, you have put together a nice piece of software, my best wishes to its success!
Regarding the original issue, I still think that making a program that lists figures past 2000 yards is just an abuse, not even the military have those models to be accurate enough. Take into account that for that challenge what is customary is to match REAL WORLD FIGURES to a model, tailored specifically for ONE RIFLE AND ONE AMMO.
My 2 cents! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif
I agree 100% with your post.
BTW, you have put together a nice piece of software, my best wishes to its success!
Regarding the original issue, I still think that making a program that lists figures past 2000 yards is just an abuse, not even the military have those models to be accurate enough. Take into account that for that challenge what is customary is to match REAL WORLD FIGURES to a model, tailored specifically for ONE RIFLE AND ONE AMMO.
My 2 cents! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif
Just some reading material.
[ QUOTE ]
Krogh model
The Krogh™ model is a full three dimensional trajectory simulation developed by James W. Krogh. This model needs a lot of computer power (or time) to calculate trajectories, but its great accuracy allowed us to extend the maximum range of the program out to 2500 yards. Mr. Krogh has many years experience working in the munitions and aerospace industries, and he holds advanced degrees in both mathematics and physics. Besides being an avid hunter, Mr. Krogh also enjoys building and shooting bench rest rifles. Against the backdrop of his expert knowledge and a bench rest shooter's obsession with accuracy, Mr. Krogh set out to develop a ballistics model that would correspond with real world observations.
The Krogh™ model should be used on trajectories that have a time of flight (TOF) of more than 1 second, or anytime you want the ultimate accuracy.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Krogh model
The Krogh™ model is a full three dimensional trajectory simulation developed by James W. Krogh. This model needs a lot of computer power (or time) to calculate trajectories, but its great accuracy allowed us to extend the maximum range of the program out to 2500 yards. Mr. Krogh has many years experience working in the munitions and aerospace industries, and he holds advanced degrees in both mathematics and physics. Besides being an avid hunter, Mr. Krogh also enjoys building and shooting bench rest rifles. Against the backdrop of his expert knowledge and a bench rest shooter's obsession with accuracy, Mr. Krogh set out to develop a ballistics model that would correspond with real world observations.
The Krogh™ model should be used on trajectories that have a time of flight (TOF) of more than 1 second, or anytime you want the ultimate accuracy.
[/ QUOTE ]
Michael Eichele
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
not even the military have those models to be accurate enough. Take into account that for that challenge what is customary is to match REAL WORLD FIGURES to a model, tailored specifically for ONE RIFLE AND ONE AMMO.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hence the reason my program uses no preset models. You can adjust the BC decay rate and the BC in the same direction or you can change the BC decay to a negative number and the BC higher to make the POI inch drop the same yet increase the arc of the trajectory.
PS, thank you for your compliment!
not even the military have those models to be accurate enough. Take into account that for that challenge what is customary is to match REAL WORLD FIGURES to a model, tailored specifically for ONE RIFLE AND ONE AMMO.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hence the reason my program uses no preset models. You can adjust the BC decay rate and the BC in the same direction or you can change the BC decay to a negative number and the BC higher to make the POI inch drop the same yet increase the arc of the trajectory.
PS, thank you for your compliment!
Gustavo
Well-Known Member
In short, my final comment on this thread is that what was originally asked for, a software to compute exterior ballistics values in excess of 2000 yards is by no means feasible under present knowledge, since the variables involved and the study of transonic bullet flight is far from available.
Any published values or tables for that kind of distances is arguably more marketing than serious work.
BTW, the equipment needed to collect field data in order to create a series of trajectory points, is in general terms, not readily available to the general public, and of no sensible use.
Of course, any program can list values to any distance you want! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Any published values or tables for that kind of distances is arguably more marketing than serious work.
BTW, the equipment needed to collect field data in order to create a series of trajectory points, is in general terms, not readily available to the general public, and of no sensible use.
Of course, any program can list values to any distance you want! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Michael Eichele
Well-Known Member
Why make this your last comment?? You are bringing some valuable info and good points to this table.
[ QUOTE ]
BTW, the equipment needed to collect field data in order to create a series of trajectory points, is in general terms, not readily available to the general public, and of no sensible use.
[/ QUOTE ]
Boy you got that right. The point I have been trying to make is that is why each indavidual must go out and collect his own real data at the ranges he wants. No less. Then and only then can he get a calculator to do what he wants. But still, once he has real world data, a calculator is still of great value even at 3000+ yards because all your changing at that point is air density and the calculator will compensate accordingly.
[ QUOTE ]
the study of transonic bullet flight is far from available.
[/ QUOTE ]
You are correct again. That is why it is absolutly critical to keep your bullets supersonic at the ranges you intend to shoot! After that, things are too unpredictable. In most cases, it is best to draw the line at or short of where your bullets go transonic.
[ QUOTE ]
BTW, the equipment needed to collect field data in order to create a series of trajectory points, is in general terms, not readily available to the general public, and of no sensible use.
[/ QUOTE ]
Boy you got that right. The point I have been trying to make is that is why each indavidual must go out and collect his own real data at the ranges he wants. No less. Then and only then can he get a calculator to do what he wants. But still, once he has real world data, a calculator is still of great value even at 3000+ yards because all your changing at that point is air density and the calculator will compensate accordingly.
[ QUOTE ]
the study of transonic bullet flight is far from available.
[/ QUOTE ]
You are correct again. That is why it is absolutly critical to keep your bullets supersonic at the ranges you intend to shoot! After that, things are too unpredictable. In most cases, it is best to draw the line at or short of where your bullets go transonic.
Gustavo
Well-Known Member
Michael, you dit it again!
Yes, I agree 100% with your comments.
And worst of all , you made me to the table again /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Trying to make a sensible recap.
If real data is no available, don't push the limits of ANY SOFTWARE out there (including mine, of course) because predictions are good enough at no more of 2000 yards, beyond that...you are in the realm of PURE LUCK and in the hands of marketing hype. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif
Up to 1500 yards, good math models are very capable of superior accuracy, if feeded the right data...something that way many shooters seem to forget.
Somehow I can understand my own last point and so forgive many fellows, since in order to make accurate calculations input data should be of excellent quality and it's rare to have them at hand.
Bullet's manufacturers are not providing us with standardized BCs data...to say the least.
In short, as Michael pointed out many times in this thread, go afield, collect real data and then and ONLY then, try to predict values in excess of 2000 yards. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Yes, I agree 100% with your comments.
And worst of all , you made me to the table again /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Trying to make a sensible recap.
If real data is no available, don't push the limits of ANY SOFTWARE out there (including mine, of course) because predictions are good enough at no more of 2000 yards, beyond that...you are in the realm of PURE LUCK and in the hands of marketing hype. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif
Up to 1500 yards, good math models are very capable of superior accuracy, if feeded the right data...something that way many shooters seem to forget.
Somehow I can understand my own last point and so forgive many fellows, since in order to make accurate calculations input data should be of excellent quality and it's rare to have them at hand.
Bullet's manufacturers are not providing us with standardized BCs data...to say the least.
In short, as Michael pointed out many times in this thread, go afield, collect real data and then and ONLY then, try to predict values in excess of 2000 yards. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Michael Eichele
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
If real data is no available, don't push the limits of ANY SOFTWARE out there (including mine, of course) because predictions are good enough at no more of 2000 yards, beyond that...you are in the realm of PURE LUCK and in the hands of marketing hype.
[/ QUOTE ]
Very well put!
The only other thig I will stress is that shooters shouldnt rely on any ballistic software beyond 600 yards without actual real world tests first. Even at 1K a shooter can be way off the mark with a small margin of BC error whereas at 600 yards, a medium margin of error will still hit the kill zone of a deer.
Thank you for your insight!
If real data is no available, don't push the limits of ANY SOFTWARE out there (including mine, of course) because predictions are good enough at no more of 2000 yards, beyond that...you are in the realm of PURE LUCK and in the hands of marketing hype.
[/ QUOTE ]
Very well put!
The only other thig I will stress is that shooters shouldnt rely on any ballistic software beyond 600 yards without actual real world tests first. Even at 1K a shooter can be way off the mark with a small margin of BC error whereas at 600 yards, a medium margin of error will still hit the kill zone of a deer.
Thank you for your insight!
col48
Well-Known Member
meichele so if you are shooting at 600y and have not been out and checked the data IE drop your program tells you, what info do you have to input in to exbal to get the drop bang on.
FPS, bullet type & BC, altitude, humidity and how close will this get you at 600y
hope this makes sense
Colin
FPS, bullet type & BC, altitude, humidity and how close will this get you at 600y
hope this makes sense
Colin
