New Book: "Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting"

[jonoMT]

Bryan,

I notice in the example you have @ http://www.appliedballisticsllc.com/index_files/bookexample.pdf that the G7 BC has very little variation among velocities vs. the G1 BCs. Is that common? If so, it would seem to make even more sense to use the G7 BC for my ballistics calculations.

Thanks,
Jon

 

[BryanLitz]

Thanks guys, for the support you've shown me on this book deal.

I notice in the example you have @ http://www.appliedballisticsllc.com/...ookexample.pdf that the G7 BC has very little variation among velocities vs. the G1 BCs. Is that common? If so, it would seem to make even more sense to use the G7 BC for my ballistics calculations.

Jon,

Good observation.

To answer your question, yes. It is common for the G7 BC to have less variation with velocity compared to the old G1 BC for long range bullets.

Many good things happen as a result of minimizing the velocity variation of BC.

For one, it allows you to calculate more accurate trajectories and do more meaningful ballistic analysis.

For another thing, it allows you to make more valid comparisons between bullets based on BC without worrying what velocity the different BC's are based on.

Here is a link to some more in-depth material for those interested in understanding and applying the advantages of G7 referenced BCs:
Berger Bulletin » Blog Archive » A Better Ballistic Coefficient


It's clear from some previous posts, but I'd like to announce it anyway, that we're beyond the pre-order stage for the book: "Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting". I took delivery of 5000 copies from the printer last week (which filled a large portion of my garage!) and will now be shipping orders as soon as they're placed.

Thank you,
-Bryan

 

[jmason]

Well worth it guys. I learned a ton in the first 20 some pages! That's saying something too since I'm mathematically and scientifically illiterate! Bryan really has made it readable for uneducated folks like myself! He's also presented the scholarly jargon for you guys that like headaches!

 

[LouBoyd]

Bryan,

I notice in the example you have @ http://www.appliedballisticsllc.com/index_files/bookexample.pdf that the G7 BC has very little variation among velocities vs. the G1 BCs. Is that common? If so, it would seem to make even more sense to use the G7 BC for my ballistics calculations.

Thanks,
Jon

The G1 reference projectile is a flat base short ogive spitzer. The G7 reference eprojectile is a much more aerodynamic long ogive boattail bullet. If you're shooting 100 yard benchrest the popular bullets will be a better match for the G1 model. For 1000 yard plus shooting where wind deflection is the dominant source of shooting error most shooters chose long ogive boattails (VLDs) and those fit the G7 model better.

Why do most bullet manufactures only publsh the G1 BC number even for low drag boattails? Simple. Of all of the G() models the G1 reference projectile has the highest drag, therefore the G1 numbers are numerically higher. Other things being equal higher BC bullets sell better. Apparently the manufacurers think buyers are so dumb they'd go by the number alone. That may be true.

You cannot convert a G1 to a G7 BC by applying a constant or even a fixed function to the numbers. The relation of a bullets G1 and G7 BC is vs velocity changes with bullet shape.

Ideally the whole concept of BCs would be dropped and drag functions vs velocity provided for each bulllet instead. That would be very unwieldy to use with lookup tables and would require computer databases. It would give better trajectory predictions in todays world of personal computers. Even drag functions don't fully describe a bullets trajectory Ther are still stability factors vs velocity vs spin rate and second order effects beyond that.

WIll such databases every be generated and made available for download or sold on mass storage media by bullet manufacturers? Maybe if it imporoves sales (or more important, profit) but it takes considerable effort to measure or calculate the data accurately. Only a small part of the shooting community would care. Particulary in competitive shooting knowing a bullet's exact trajectory doesn't help much in trying to shoot smaller goroups or higher scores. With most manufacturers we're lucky to get a single G1 BC value for each bullet which is reasonably close at normal muzzle velocities. For most shooters that's good enough.

This website has drawings with the dimensions (in calibers) of the "G" reference projectiles:
http://www.frfrogspad.com/drgshape.htm

 

[jonoMT]

Great info! I think I'll be getting this book...if Bryan has any copies left. There are a number of bullets listed that I use so I can at least get accurate G7 BCs for those - ones that have been uniformly tested using the same method by the same person.

 

[BryanLitz]

Great info! I think I'll be getting this book...if Bryan has any copies left.

Not to worry Jon,
Check out the view in my garage.

Turns out 5000 books takes up a lot of space,
Please help me get rid of them!

-Bryan

 

[jonoMT]

Two things, Bryan: Even with all those book boxes your garage is still cleaner than mine. Also, they take up more room than the 1200 3D posters of Mount Rainier that I still have. I could send you a poster along with my payment! (I sold the other 8800 over three years but printed 10000 since the price break was considerable).

 

[Topshot]

Hey Bryan,

Your book has just gone "LONG RANGE"

It arrived in my mail box down here in Australia this morning. Now that is a long shot!

Well done Mate!

The book looks great, I look forward to reading it and working out that CD that came with it.

Im sure it will be a success.

 

[ss7mm]

I received Bryan's book yesterday and finished it tonight. All I can say is that if anyone ever asks me about a book on ballistics, this will be the one I recommend.

For a book that contains so much data and information, it is one of the easiest to read that I've ever owned. You can read all of it or part of it. You can get deeply involved with every segment, formula and chapter or you can read parts but be warned, if you start reading it you won't stop till you've finished it.

You'll find that you better understand a lot of things that you knew happened but never really knew the exact reason why they happened. You'll find that Bryan has the ability to make the seemingly complicated and hard to understand concepts and ballistic fundamentsl very easy to comprehend and understand. It's a library of ballistics books all wrapped up into one easy to read and understand volume.

If you think you know ballistics you will know it better after reading this book. If you think you understand ballistics, you will understand it better after reading this book. It's educational, informative, interesting, entertaining and is a gold mine of data and information.

Congratulations on a great book Bryan. It should be in everyone's library. Now.......I think I'll go sit down, prop my feet up and start reading it over again.

 

[jmden]

I received Bryan's book yesterday and finished it tonight. All I can say is that if anyone ever asks me about a book on ballistics, this will be the one I recommend.

For a book that contains so much data and information, it is one of the easiest to read that I've ever owned. You can read all of it or part of it. You can get deeply involved with every segment, formula and chapter or you can read parts but be warned, if you start reading it you won't stop till you've finished it.

You'll find that you better understand a lot of things that you knew happened but never really knew the exact reason why they happened. You'll find that Bryan has the ability to make the seemingly complicated and hard to understand concepts and ballistic fundamentsl very easy to comprehend and understand. It's a library of ballistics books all wrapped up into one easy to read and understand volume.

If you think you know ballistics you will know it better after reading this book. If you think you understand ballistics, you will understand it better after reading this book. It's educational, informative, interesting, entertaining and is a gold mine of data and information.

Congratulations on a great book Bryan. It should be in everyone's library. Now.......I think I'll go sit down, prop my feet up and start reading it over again.

+1 Have read through it 3x and still am picking stuff up. Anyone who's serious about LRH should read this book to gain a deeper understanding of what is going on.

BTW, Bryan, are you planning on meauring the .308 200g AB? Fairly popular bullet with many guys here. Also, I'd be curious to get your take on the .338 250g AB bc numbers.

Jon

 

[R.C.Saul]

Just placed my order. Cant wait!

 

[Timberwolfhd]

I have the book and it is GREAT!! If you don't have it, order it! I have a question: This and other long range shooting books say the same thing. If you're shooting long range, say 1000 yds, run the ballistics program with 100 yd zero, see what the drop is at 1000 yds and divide that by 10 ( 8 for 800 yds, 6 for 600 yds, etc), and that is the inches of elevation you have to correct for on your scope/sights. What's wrong with running the program with 1000 yd zero and then seeing what is says elevation is at 100 yds to correct, and why are they different?

 

[Topshot]

I have the book and it is GREAT!! If you don't have it, order it! I have a question: This and other long range shooting books say the same thing. If you're shooting long range, say 1000 yds, run the ballistics program with 100 yd zero, see what the drop is at 1000 yds and divide that by 10 ( 8 for 800 yds, 6 for 600 yds, etc), and that is the inches of elevation you have to correct for on your scope/sights. What's wrong with running the program with 1000 yd zero and then seeing what is says elevation is at 100 yds to correct, and why are they different?

I think it is because the line of sight is slightly different.

 

[Fitch]

This book is just what I was looking for. After reading it the first time I had a much better sppreciation of exterior ballistics. Reading it the second time with a pencil, paper, calculater, and occasional use of an EXCEL spreadshhet was even more informative than the first time through.

This is a "must read" for anyone who aspires to hunt more than 50 yards beyond point blank range. It brings one back to the realities of long range shooting.

Well done Brian.

Fitch