Why is Applied Ballistics Dominating Hornady DOF.....?

[Texaslongshot]

So i watched the Hornady podcast on their 4 DOF calculator. Based on what they are saying theirs uses significantly more computational power and in theory should be better. If that is the case why does Applied Ballistics seem to dominate it in the market place. To my knowledge Applied Ballistics is integrated with Kestrel, Leica, Sig, Vortex Wilcox, M.A.R.S and probably others. I think Hornady DOF is only is integrated with Kestrel.

With all of the marketing resources/$$ of Hornady why aren't they integrated with more products?

Also which is actually better? On the hide we see crazy extensive optics reviews with every nuance of subjective evaluations of glass ect but to my knowledge i have not seen someone line up AB vs Hornady at 1000 plus yards and see which is more accurate to their weapon system. Even if you don't shoot it i haven't seen much comparison between the outputs of the 2 solvers at ELR distances where differences arise and who's might be better.

It seems to me if Hornady was stastically better we would see guys at nightforce challenge or king of 2 miles seeing it differentiating itself from other solvers.

Thoughts?

 

[6.5SH]

Ko2M 2022 equipment list:

Ko2M 2022 Equipment List.pdf

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

6 used Hornady bullets, 4 of those used 4DOF as their solver. Until more bullets from other vendors are part of the library it likely won't expand its user base in that arena IMO.

 

[Baron23]

Ko2M 2022 equipment list:

Ko2M 2022 Equipment List.pdf

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

6 used Hornady bullets, 4 of those used 4DOF as their solver. Until more bullets from other vendors are part of the library it likely won't expand its user base in that arena IMO.

Well, they have what I shoot in the bullet drag curve library. Hornady, Berger, Lapua, Nosler, and even Warner.

No, not nearly as extensive as AB, but they have what I need at the present and the price was right haha

 

[_Windrider_]

So i watched the Hornady podcast on their 4 DOF calculator. Based on what they are saying theirs uses significantly more computational power and in theory should be better. If that is the case why does Applied Ballistics seem to dominate it in the market place. To my knowledge Applied Ballistics is integrated with Kestrel, Leica, Sig, Vortex Wilcox, M.A.R.S and probably others. I think Hornady DOF is only is integrated with Kestrel.

With all of the marketing resources/$$ of Hornady why aren't they integrated with more products?

Also which is actually better? On the hide we see crazy extensive optics reviews with every nuance of subjective evaluations of glass ect but to my knowledge i have not seen someone line up AB vs Hornady at 1000 plus yards and see which is more accurate to their weapon system. Even if you don't shoot it i haven't seen much comparison between the outputs of the 2 solvers at ELR distances where differences arise and who's might be better.

It seems to me if Hornady was stastically better we would see guys at nightforce challenge or king of 2 miles seeing it differentiating itself from other solvers.

Thoughts?

The problem is you are thinking about a ballistic solver wrong. You make the solver match your real world data not the other way around. You have to tune the solver to your rifle and load combo.

 

[Ledzep]

AB: Sells solver as a business
Hornady: Solver offered as a (free, or mostly free) supplement to their bullet/ammo product.

One of those two is more motivated to get their solver locked in with contracts and integrated wherever possible.

 

[Texaslongshot]

≈

The problem is you are thinking about a ballistic solver wrong. You make the solver match your real world data not the other way around. You have to tune the solver to your rifle and load combo.

This only makes since to a point. I understand how you can make a solver match your real world data but that is in an effort to then ultimately make hits on targets at various distances under various environmental conditions for the first time after that. Hence the question which solver is better at that.

This would be an exercise in futility if you just shot at long range to then make your solver match your real world data. What's the point? Took me 5 rounds to get a hit on a target then i made the solver match the real word data? Hell even if you hit the target the first time but then have to adjust your solver to match. The point being once its trued in whatever mechanism that is for either solver which is the best after that?

Think about it this way. If you trained 10 snipers stateside. Then sent to Afghanistan what's the best tool/solver for them to get extended hits in the new environment..... hornady 4 DOF or Applied ballistics? Hell even if you true up while in Afghanistan with solver what is going to give you the best solution tomorrow on a first round engagement?

While i understand a goal initially may be to get your solver to match your real world data but the real goal of that is really so that it can give you accurate predictions on engagements you haven't taken yet.

If your only goal is to make your solver match your real world data after the fact a ballistic solver is useless.

 

[Texaslongshot]

AB: Sells solver as a business
Hornady: Solver offered as a (free, or mostly free) supplement to their bullet/ammo product.

One of those two is more motivated to get their solver locked in with contracts and integrated wherever possible.

So if thats case and Hornady truly believes their solver is better which is what they articulated in their podcast. However they did not mention Applied Ballistics specifically they just compared theirs to every other solver they are just gonna let applied ballistics dominate the market with integration into a much larger market share then they have just because its a supplement to their ammo and they don't want to make money?

Look at that King of 2 mile equipment list. Applied Ballistics is dominating. Is is dominating because its a better solver or because applied ballistics has better market share? Hornady is pretty phenomenal at marketing. Look at their new caliber introductions. If they really have a better solver and are getting dominated thats surprising.

Regardless i don't really care about that aspect. I just have not seen anyone run a hornady DOF compared to Applied Ballistics trued or untrue and see what works better.

 

[Matches Malone]

≈

This only makes since to a point. I understand how you can make a solver match your real world data but that is in an effort to then ultimately make hits on targets at various distances under various environmental conditions for the first time after that. Hence the question which solver is better at that.

This would be an exercise in futility if you just shot at long range to then make your solver match your real world data. What's the point? Took me 5 rounds to get a hit on a target then i made the solver match the real word data? Hell even if you hit the target the first time but then have to adjust your solver to match. The point being once its trued in whatever mechanism that is for either solver which is the best after that?

Think about it this way. If you trained 10 snipers stateside. Then sent to Afghanistan what's the best tool/solver for them to get extended hits in the new environment..... hornady 4 DOF or Applied ballistics? Hell even if you true up while in Afghanistan with solver what is going to give you the best solution tomorrow on a first round engagement?

While i understand a goal initially may be to get your solver to match your real world data but the real goal of that is really so that it can give you accurate predictions on engagements you haven't taken yet.

If your only goal is to make your solver match your real world data after the fact a ballistic solver is useless.

How is it useless? It’s called truing. All solvers require it to a degree. Once the data is trued, it’s should be good.

In AB, you can do custom curves, that for me, have eliminated needed it multiple profiles with different BCs, but still needs to be trued at subsonic, usually done in drop scale factor (DSF).

Since you want to use the military analogy, AB is in current use for military service. That said, I assure you, much of the math in most of the solvers are similar.

 

[Texaslongshot]

How is it useless? It’s called truing. All solvers require it to a degree. Once the data is trued, it’s should be good.

In AB, you can do custom curves, that for me, have eliminated needed it multiple profiles with different BCs, but still needs to be trued at subsonic, usually done in drop scale factor (DSF).

Since you want to use the military analogy, AB is in current use for military service. That said, I assure you, much of the math in most of the solvers are similar.

Matches i am not saying that truing is useless. i understand that it is required for all solvers. My point being if you took a trued hornady DOF and a trued Applied ballistics solver for your gun and ran it to really long distances which would be better. there do start to be differences at very long ranges.

Also you stated " i assure you much of the math in most of the solver are similar"

If you watch the hornady podcast that is not their claim. They report that they solver takes in 100s more computational calculations that other solvers do not so much so that a hornady DOF kestrel will only accept 3 gun profiles which an applied ballistics takes like 30 ( don't quote me exactly) because there is not room for the extra profiles because the hornday DOF takes so much more resources on the kestrel.

What your saying is in direct contradiction to what hornday says. They say our solvers math is much different and much more advanced.

Hence my question is it really better....

 

[Matches Malone]

Matches i am not saying that truing is useless. i understand that it is required for all solvers. My point being if you took a trued hornady DOF and a trued Applied ballistics solver for your gun and ran it to really long distances which would be better. there do start to be differences at very long ranges.

Also you stated " i assure you much of the math in most of the solver are similar"

If you watch the hornady podcast that is not their claim. They report that they solver takes in 100s more computational calculations that other solvers do not so much so that a hornady DOF kestrel will only accept 3 gun profiles which an applied ballistics takes like 30 ( don't quote me exactly) because there is not room for the extra profiles because the hornday DOF takes so much more resources on the kestrel.

What your saying is in direct contradiction to what hornday says. They say our solvers math is much different and much more advanced.

Hence my question is it really better....

You’re free to elaborate on the actual math that is so much more advanced. If not, there’s nothing to dispute…
…We can start with computing gravity….

You can probably ask @Kestrel Ballistics about if that’s true or not about the computational space on a kestrel. The old AB sport kestrels only had 3 profiles on it, but had half the features. So, that fact alone doesn’t add up to me. I wouldn’t think it’s a trade secret if Hornady is podcasting or whatever all the information…

 

[Ledzep]

You’re free to elaborate on the actual math that is so much more advanced. If not, there’s nothing to dispute…
…We can start with computing gravity….

You can probably ask @Kestrel Ballistics about if that’s true or not about the computational space on a kestrel. The old AB sport kestrels only had 3 profiles on it, but had half the features. So, that fact alone doesn’t add up to me. I wouldn’t think it’s a trade secret if Hornady is podcasting or whatever all the information…

 

[Kestrel Ballistics]

Compare features here:

Using Kestrel Ballistics with Precision and Competitive Shooting

PRS matches and Kestrel Ballistics go hand-in-hand. Rise to the top of the leader board with your trusty Kestrel Ballistics Meter by your side!

kestrelballistics.com

 

[_Windrider_]

Matches i am not saying that truing is useless. i understand that it is required for all solvers. My point being if you took a trued hornady DOF and a trued Applied ballistics solver for your gun and ran it to really long distances which would be better. there do start to be differences at very long ranges.

Also you stated " i assure you much of the math in most of the solver are similar"

If you watch the hornady podcast that is not their claim. They report that they solver takes in 100s more computational calculations that other solvers do not so much so that a hornady DOF kestrel will only accept 3 gun profiles which an applied ballistics takes like 30 ( don't quote me exactly) because there is not room for the extra profiles because the hornday DOF takes so much more resources on the kestrel.

What your saying is in direct contradiction to what hornday says. They say our solvers math is much different and much more advanced.

Hence my question is it really better....

4DOF is a modified point mass solver. Both have limitations and the reason that AB is dominant is not necessarily marketing but that it’s adaptable and the bullet library is huge compared to 4DOF. Not a lot of military rounds have Hornady bullets in them, if any. But AB does have its shortcomings. That’s why FFS is still highly desirable and better than AB and 4DOF. I personally like AB because I’ve been using it for so long. I’m used to it’s nuances. Is it better than 4DOF? Probably for anything that doesn’t have a Hornady bullet in it yes. So if you shoot Hornady exclusively 4 DOF is a great solver.

4DOF still needs truing. If your velocity isn’t he same as theirs when they tested it your MV axial form factor will be off.

 

[ACard]

If you watch the hornady podcast that is not their claim. They report that they solver takes in 100s more computational calculations that other solvers do not so much so that a hornady DOF kestrel will only accept 3 gun profiles which an applied ballistics takes like 30 ( don't quote me exactly) because there is not room for the extra profiles because the hornday DOF takes so much more resources on the kestrel.

What your saying is in direct contradiction to what hornday says. They say our solvers math is much different and much more advanced.

Hence my question is it really better....

Question for you @Texaslongshot Why would Hornady make those claims? It surely could not be for the reason they would like to increase their marketshare.....

I doubt anyone outside the inner circle of engineers and physicist can back or dispute those sorts of claims to be honest. So buy one of each and try them out and go with the one you prefer.

 

[cas6969]

"Why is Applied Ballistics Dominating Hornady DOF.....?"​

Because an awful name? (acronym)

 

[Ledzep]

4DOF still needs truing. If your velocity isn’t he same as theirs when they tested it your MV axial form factor will be off.

That's not the reason for axial form factor, and it's not "MV axial form factor".

You can launch bullets from 3 different barrels at exactly the same MV and twist rate and get slightly different drag profiles. Likewise you can have three barrels with different muzzle velocities and nearly identical drag profiles (over the shared portions of CD vs. Mach). That's why it exists, to match the CD vs. Mach "average" in 4DoF to your specific situation. It's shifting the CD vs. Mach curve up (>1.0) or down (<1.0) by very small percentages to account for the increased/decreased drag your barrel+muzzle device causes on the bullet at muzzle exit.

 

[_Windrider_]

That's not the reason for axial form factor, and it's not "MV axial form factor".

You can launch bullets from 3 different barrels at exactly the same MV and twist rate and get slightly different drag profiles. Likewise you can have three barrels with different muzzle velocities and nearly identical drag profiles (over the shared portions of CD vs. Mach). That's why it exists, to match the CD vs. Mach "average" in 4DoF to your specific situation. It's shifting the CD vs. Mach curve up (>1.0) or down (<1.0) by very small percentages to account for the increased/decreased drag your barrel+muzzle device causes on the bullet at muzzle exit.

So your saying a bullet going slower has the same drag? It’s literally the same thing as BC. Both are a function of and dependent on velocity.


You have to true your BC for your rifle, barrel, muzzle device silencer etc etc as those all have an effect potentially on your velocity. It’s the same cat just skinned a different way.

 

[Ledzep]

So your saying a bullet going slower has the same drag? It’s literally the same thing as BC. Both are a function of and dependent on velocity.


You have to true your BC for your rifle, barrel, muzzle device silencer etc etc as those all have an effect potentially on your velocity. It’s the same cat just skinned a different way.

No. That's not what I'm saying.

The CD vs. Mach plot for a barrel with a Mach 2.5 muzzle launch can overlap basically identically to the CD vs. Mach plot of the same bullet with a Mach 3.0 muzzle launch from Mach 2.5 down to 0. 4DoF is pulling the CD vs. Mach data to plug into the total drag formula to determine how fast the bullet is slowing down.

Different muzzle devices or muzzle exit conditions (even different propellants can cause this to change in the same barrel with the same bullets) shift the CD vs. Mach curve up or down. The entire curve. That's what axial form factor is correcting for.

 

[Matches Malone]

That's not the reason for axial form factor, and it's not "MV axial form factor".

You can launch bullets from 3 different barrels at exactly the same MV and twist rate and get slightly different drag profiles. Likewise you can have three barrels with different muzzle velocities and nearly identical drag profiles (over the shared portions of CD vs. Mach). That's why it exists, to match the CD vs. Mach "average" in 4DoF to your specific situation. It's shifting the CD vs. Mach curve up (>1.0) or down (<1.0) by very small percentages to account for the increased/decreased drag your barrel+muzzle device causes on the bullet at muzzle exit.

I’m not watching some shit like that for an hour. I simply do fly by responses, but I don’t have an hour to kill for a few days.

I did ask for this though, about what math was different. If the axial form factor is the big difference, then it sounds like ABs CDs…..? That would mean the only differences is the AB has its own CDs for the same bullets, while hornady seems to only do their own bullets.

Other than that, gravity is gravity, etc.

 

[Ledzep]

I’m not watching some shit like that for an hour. I simply do fly by responses, but I don’t have an hour to kill for a few days.

I did ask for this though, about what math was different. If the axial form factor is the big difference, then it sounds like ABs CDs…..? That would mean the only differences is the AB has its own CDs for the same bullets, while hornady seems to only do their own bullets.

Other than that, gravity is gravity, etc.

The answers to your questions are in the first 15 minutes of that video. If you can't give it that much time why am I wasting mine?
ETA: Also in the last 5-10 minutes of the video they address the data/storage space limitations on the Kestrel units.

And no, axial form factor is not the primary difference between the two. The CDM on AB is a step towards what 4DoF does for drag, but doesn't allow for what the 4th degree of freedom takes into account (spin drift, aerodynamic jump, etc.). FWIW, I believe Litz has a paper out there somewhere discussing the differences between AB and 4-6DoF solvers and from what I recall Litz basically said the extra computing wasn't worth the gains in accuracy of the prediction.

 

[_Windrider_]

Just so we are all clear, we beat the shit out of this about 5 years ago

Ballistic Apps - 3DOF, 4DOF, 6DOF

I've got a few apps and am familiar with a few more. Does anybody know which ballistic engines are 3DOF, 4DOF, and 6DOF? I know that Lapua's app says its 6DOF, Hornady's app is 4DOF... But what about the others? I know I've read some threads where LL went into depth on why he wasn't a fan...

www.snipershide.com

 

[M4orturnate]

I do wish we could tune the cdm from ab like axial form factor. But to be honest i havent needed to yet. I plug my inputs in, select the custom curve, and run it out. So far across multiple guns and a bunch of projos its been spot on. The only ones ive tuned are .22lr with the dsf and its money.

 

[camocorvette]

Sold my 4dof elite because the 5700 elite had a target list. Haha 4dof I could only have one target at a time. Think the 5700 gives me 12.

 

[Texaslongshot]

Thanks for the responses. This gave me some good insights.

 

[CaylenW]

The problem is you are thinking about a ballistic solver wrong. You make the solver match your real world data not the other way around. You have to tune the solver to your rifle and load combo.

This is not a true statement. Sure you can lie to your software, but you get what you get when you do that.

When you have a solver that actually represents reality, you don't need to adjust much.

The facts are the facts; Hornady's solver is superior to AB's in every way, and it's free. (BTW, the BC solver side of the Hornady software is just as accurate as AB's.)

 

[CaylenW]

4DOF is a modified point mass solver. Both have limitations and the reason that AB is dominant is not necessarily marketing but that it’s adaptable and the bullet library is huge compared to 4DOF. Not a lot of military rounds have Hornady bullets in them, if any. But AB does have its shortcomings. That’s why FFS is still highly desirable and better than AB and 4DOF. I personally like AB because I’ve been using it for so long. I’m used to it’s nuances. Is it better than 4DOF? Probably for anything that doesn’t have a Hornady bullet in it yes. So if you shoot Hornady exclusively 4 DOF is a great solver.

4DOF still needs truing. If your velocity isn’t he same as theirs when they tested it your MV axial form factor will be off.

All military projectiles reside in the radar data side of 4 DOF.

4 DOF isn't partial to any particular bullet over another. If the bullet resides in the 4 DOF library, it has the same data points as any other bullet. I can confirm this with 100% certainty. The data is collected in the same way for non-Hornady bullets as it is for Hornady bullets.

 

[_Windrider_]

This is not a true statement. Sure you can lie to your software, but you get what you get when you do that.

When you have a solver that actually represents reality, you don't need to adjust much.

The facts are the facts; Hornady's solver is superior to AB's in every way, and it's free. (BTW, the BC solver side of the Hornady software is just as accurate as AB's.)

To be clear, im not talking about massive adjustments of +- 300 fps or anything like that, minor tweaks as even the best chrono's have a variable in their accuracy. if my labradar tells me my MV is 2875 and the real world data to when i shoot and confirm and after matching that up in the BC it says its 2862, does it matter or is the fact that i can now have a much more precise calculation in the future from that same calculator regardless of what the inputted numbers really are? does that lower velocity change my Ballistic coefficient? yeah, is it enough to matter.......probably not. does it change my axial form factor? yeah, is it enough to matter.......probably not.

Hornadys problem with their solver in my opinion only, is teh interface sucks. using scroll inputs and sliders simply doesnt work on teh phones in a meaningful way. when its cold and you are wearing gloves its a pain in the ass.

Is Hornady better in every way? i have no clue. ill default toy our expertise and experince to make that judgement. is AB better. no, but the interface is (my opinion). Where AB falls short is how it does AJ and SD but there are ways around that where you basically turn it into 4 dof and remove their AJ and SD predictions. will i know their values, no. do i care. no.

 

[CaylenW]

Why is Applied Ballistics' solver dominating Hornady's 4DOF?

Excellent question, however that's an onion with a lot of layers to peel back.

What are the facts? With 100% certainty, the Hornady 4 DOF program is a superior solver. (Yes, even with non-Hornady projectiles.) The Hornady solver has superior computational power, and uses more data points in their curves. Their atmospheric tables are more accurate. The software is far, far easier to tune to reality and doesn't require knowledge like a circa-1990 Contra cheat code to unlock further potential within the software. It's about as simple as it gets.

Oh, and it's free too. You guys can continue to pitch money into AB's pocket for a substandard product if you like. There's of course psychological aspects at play here as well; when we as humans compare two products that purportedly do the same thing we tend to find ourselves leaning away from something that costs less, even if that product that costs less has better performance.

Then, there's the "FOMO" Fear Of Missing Out aspect of things. AB is what all the cool kids have, so therefore you've gotta have the same thing or you'll feel as if you're at a disadvantage, even though what the cool kids have is the result of consuming copious amounts of kool aid. This ties into narrative psychology and confirmation biases too.

Few like to step out of line within their community and go against the grain, even though there's better options out there.

Dudes drop about $900 bones on an AB Kestrel because they think they need it to be successful. That's a friggin' travesty and ya'll are being had. Or, same dude could download a free application, buy a $150 Kestrel that has all the atmospheric information they need, and get more accurate predictions in far less time with far less comprehension of how the software and interface works to obtain those results.

The choice is of course yours at the end of the day. It boils down to being able to remove yourself from the herd mentality, understand the differences, do the legwork to educate yourself and decide where you really want to spend your money.

 

[_Windrider_]

Why is Applied Ballistics' solver dominating Hornady's 4DOF?

Excellent question, however that's an onion with a lot of layers to peel back.

What are the facts? With 100% certainty, the Hornady 4 DOF program is a superior solver. (Yes, even with non-Hornady projectiles.) The Hornady solver has superior computational power, and uses more data points in their curves. Their atmospheric tables are more accurate. The software is far, far easier to tune to reality and doesn't require knowledge like a circa-1990 Contra cheat code to unlock further potential within the software. It's about as simple as it gets.

Oh, and it's free too. You guys can continue to pitch money into AB's pocket for a substandard product if you like. There's of course psychological aspects at play here as well; when we as humans compare two products that purportedly do the same thing we tend to find ourselves leaning away from something that costs less, even if that product that costs less has better performance.

Then, there's the "FOMO" Fear Of Missing Out aspect of things. AB is what all the cool kids have, so therefore you've gotta have the same thing or you'll feel as if you're at a disadvantage, even though what the cool kids have is the result of consuming copious amounts of kool aid. This ties into narrative psychology and confirmation biases too.

Few like to step out of line within their community and go against the grain, even though there's better options out there.

Dudes drop about $900 bones on an AB Kestrel because they think they need it to be successful. That's a friggin' travesty and ya'll are being had. Or, same dude could download a free application, buy a $150 Kestrel that has all the atmospheric information they need, and get more accurate predictions in far less time with far less comprehension of how the software and interface works to obtain those results.

The choice is of course yours at the end of the day. It boils down to being able to remove yourself from the herd mentality, understand the differences, do the legwork to educate yourself and decide where you really want to spend your money.

Up down up down left right left right A B B A

I still got my contra codes.

 

[stanley_white]

It would be neat to see a video where each solver was given the same input and their ballistic solutions for the shot were then compared.

I wonder at what point there would be a difference?

-Stan

 

[Hagen]

Up down up down left right left right A B B A

I still got my contra codes.

I thought it was up up down down left right left right b a b a

Who needed thirty lives anyways?

 

[264win]

I think one of the reasons AB seems to dominate is that this is a group primarily of guys who like to shoot. Not as many guys who are techs and like to spend a lot of time playing with electronics in the field. AB has more than 99.9 % of us will ever need and is easier / simpler to learn and use ( according to most guys I have chatted with.)
Even if everyone agreed that Hornady 4DOF was more accurate, very few people would be able to appreciate the difference.

 

[Dogtown]

HA-DOO- KEN

Great thread by the way.

 

[nksmfamjp]

Let me see if I can explain this logically with enough details, but without confusion!

AB is a 6DOF solver….there are a max of 6 dof. It is optimized when you buy their custom drag model, but will still give G7 and G1 solutions that many folks are using. The best solutions when you pay to shoot your load in front of the AB radar. That said the thing that separates AB from the cheap stuff is it can be much better in the transitional and subsonic zones of velocity. When I think about that plus most bullets won’t perform on game under 1800fps, this is largely unusable capability to me.

Hornady is a simpler(should be faster) 4dof solver. Instead of using g1 and G7 bc’s, they have a custom drag model in there for all Hornady bullets and many competitor bullets.

Technically the AB is better, but how many people are shooting far enough to drop in to transitional and slower flight? If the Hornady is faster, that could be nice.

 

[CaylenW]

Let me see if I can explain this logically with enough details, but without confusion!

AB is a 6DOF solver….there are a max of 6 dof. It is optimized when you buy their custom drag model, but will still give G7 and G1 solutions that many folks are using. The best solutions when you pay to shoot your load in front of the AB radar. That said the thing that separates AB from the cheap stuff is it can be much better in the transitional and subsonic zones of velocity. When I think about that plus most bullets won’t perform on game under 1800fps, this is largely unusable capability to me.

Hornady is a simpler(should be faster) 4dof solver. Instead of using g1 and G7 bc’s, they have a custom drag model in there for all Hornady bullets and many competitor bullets.

Technically the AB is better, but how many people are shooting far enough to drop in to transitional and slower flight? If the Hornady is faster, that could be nice.

Applied Ballistics is not a 6 DOF solver. There aren't any hand-held devices that are true 6 DOF solvers. Any 6 DOF solver prediction is hypothetical anyway because at this time there isn't enough computational power to solve for those equations.

"The best solutions when you pay to shoot your load in front of the AB radar." - Then you say that Hornady has custom drag models for Hornady bullets and many competitor bullets. You do know that the Hornady solver is free, right? Like I said in my earlier post, you guys can continue to line AB's pockets needlessly, or you can educate yourself and understand that there's a better way forward.

"That said the thing that separates AB from the cheap stuff is it can be much better in the transitional and subsonic zones of velocity." - This is also false. The use of a radar drag curves has proven that the famed and dangerous "transonic zone" is not a real thing and very few bullets suffer from the transition from supersonic to subsonic flight.

You might do some further research on the subject before making posts about it. I'm definitely not trying to purposefully be an asshole, but your statements contribute to the dogmatic approach that the community has fallen into.

 

[CaylenW]

I think one of the reasons AB seems to dominate is that this is a group primarily of guys who like to shoot. Not as many guys who are techs and like to spend a lot of time playing with electronics in the field. AB has more than 99.9 % of us will ever need and is easier / simpler to learn and use ( according to most guys I have chatted with.)
Even if everyone agreed that Hornady 4DOF was more accurate, very few people would be able to appreciate the difference.

That's where the problem lies. It's education. AB's solver in comparison to 4 DOF is NOT easier to use and requires significantly more understanding on the user level to get accurate predictions.

 

[NiteQwill]

@CaylenW tbf, you should be clear with the users here that you're sponsored by Hornady so that may (or may not) influence your replies here.

Whatever solver gets a shooter to the target is the correct one. Both do. One just happens to have a larger market share.

 

[_Windrider_]

Applied Ballistics is not a 6 DOF solver. There aren't any hand-held devices that are true 6 DOF solvers. Any 6 DOF solver prediction is hypothetical anyway because at this time there isn't enough computational power to solve for those equations.

"The best solutions when you pay to shoot your load in front of the AB radar." - Then you say that Hornady has custom drag models for Hornady bullets and many competitor bullets. You do know that the Hornady solver is free, right? Like I said in my earlier post, you guys can continue to line AB's pockets needlessly, or you can educate yourself and understand that there's a better way forward.

"That said the thing that separates AB from the cheap stuff is it can be much better in the transitional and subsonic zones of velocity." - This is also false. The use of a radar drag curves has proven that the famed and dangerous "transonic zone" is not a real thing and very few bullets suffer from the transition from supersonic to subsonic flight.

You might do some further research on the subject before making posts about it. I'm definitely not trying to purposefully be an asshole, but your statements contribute to the dogmatic approach that the community has fallen into.

I’ve been using AB since before 4DOF even existed so to say I’ve been had and am wasting my money is flat out wrong. As I said earlier, I prefer it because I know it and have used it for a long time. I’ve also used TRASOL, ballistic AE, strelok, bullet flight, shoooter etc etc. if I had a choice I’d be using FFS but I hate dragging around the nomad and the windows mobile software is junk at this point since it’s dead. Coldbore is great on the laptop and I run it alongside AB Analytics. They are all within a small margin of error of each other and all require tweaking whether you tweak MV or Axial Form Factor does it really matter? At the end of the day you are just changing a variable of the drag equation which changes how gravity effects the bullet.

But I guess I should abandon the products that have been paid for 10 times over and use this free one now. Got it. No one has said go out and buy anything. It’s about why AB has a broader market share and that answer is simply they are better at packaging their product into other devices. Whether you use BDX from sig or your phone or a kestrel or whatever the fact is AB is more integrated into more products people are using. Now what I don’t like is that they charge way to much (feels like the Horus model) in many cases for that integration and the manufacturers can run and not run certain aspects. Kestrel for example. One thing AB does that Hornady doesn’t is account for my Lh twist barrels.

Much respect for you Caylen. Your opinions experience and advice are well warranted and received but maybe frame your points around guys who are just getting into it with zero investment versus guys who have been using it for over a decade.

 

[n00g7]

That's where the problem lies. It's education. AB's solver in comparison to 4 DOF is NOT easier to use and requires significantly more understanding on the user level to get accurate predictions.

Hornady just knows that their audience needs it to be simple so their customer support staff can take bathroom breaks throughout the day.

 

[_Windrider_]

4DOF (on mobile) also requires an internet connection. So if you are in bum fucked Egypt you are just fucked

 

[CaylenW]

@CaylenW tbf, you should be clear with the users here that you're sponsored by Hornady so that may (or may not) influence your replies here.

Whatever solver gets a shooter to the target is the correct one. Both do. One just happens to have a larger market share.

I was using it before I was "sponsored" because I saw the benefits of it.

You're right, to each their own, but I'm in the business of education, so that's what I do. I've got no dog in the fight either way.

Hornady doesn't pay me, or MDS. I shoot their bullets and I promote a solver that's beneficial to the community.

 

[psharon78]

I've used a lot of ballistic solvers on my iphone. I prefer 4dof for my competitions. It gets impacts on steel, similar to any other solver. Use what works for you.

 

[CaylenW]

4DOF (on mobile) also requires an internet connection. So if you are in bum fucked Egypt you are just fucked

View attachment 8044519

That's incorrect. Put your device in airplane mode and you won't get that notice.

 

[_Windrider_]

That's incorrect. Put your device in airplane mode and you won't get that notice.

Look at the top of the picture

Edited. After a few crashes and hitting ignore I got it to go offline.

 

[CaylenW]

and all require tweaking whether you tweak MV or Axial Form Factor does it really matter? At the end of the day you are just changing a variable of the drag equation which changes how gravity effects the bullet.

Yes, it does really matter.

Manipulation of MV is bad practice and leads to a host of inaccuracies in your prediction, most notably due to temperature variations which leads to Mach number, which is directly related to your bullet's drag. Check out their podcast on YouTube, Jayden explains this very clearly and presents a lot of visual aids to reinforce this concept.

We can't change how gravity affects a bullet either. Gravity is gravity....

 

[nksmfamjp]

Applied Ballistics is not a 6 DOF solver. There aren't any hand-held devices that are true 6 DOF solvers. Any 6 DOF solver prediction is hypothetical anyway because at this time there isn't enough computational power to solve for those equations.

"The best solutions when you pay to shoot your load in front of the AB radar." - Then you say that Hornady has custom drag models for Hornady bullets and many competitor bullets. You do know that the Hornady solver is free, right? Like I said in my earlier post, you guys can continue to line AB's pockets needlessly, or you can educate yourself and understand that there's a better way forward.

"That said the thing that separates AB from the cheap stuff is it can be much better in the transitional and subsonic zones of velocity." - This is also false. The use of a radar drag curves has proven that the famed and dangerous "transonic zone" is not a real thing and very few bullets suffer from the transition from supersonic to subsonic flight.

You might do some further research on the subject before making posts about it. I'm definitely not trying to purposefully be an asshole, but your statements contribute to the dogmatic approach that the community has fallen into.

@CaylenW ,
I’m going to assume what you say is true. I gathered that information from a couple podcasts where Bryan Litz, Frank and some others I trust were speaking. Maybe I remember it wrong. It has been a while and as I said, it doesn’t affect me because I’m more of a hunter which means I’m not super concerned below say 1600fps.

I have no issue getting the free 4dof and using it. I’m holding the Kestrel in my hand already and mine is AB. I didn’t seek that out, it just is. It is paid for and I don’t need another that is the same.

You must be doing some serious research. Transonic and subsonic is not shit I pulled off the Hide. Back in the day I spent a couple years doing a thing called getting an engineering degree where that was taught and learned by me from an ABET accredited university. I did further reading of some summarized Army research material that told me similar. Have I tested it? Isolated variables? Built my own wind tunnel? No, but since you know, please share. I’m sure my learned information is dated.

I get new bullets, new problems. We didn’t have the sleek Bergers and Hornady stuff back in the day.

Now, I’ve tried to address this fairly professionally up to this point….You might look at your writing. Your building a brand with the modern day sniper gig and all that, but your attitude was just a bit outside. Then you start spouting off about PHD level physics stuff that just seems a bit outside your central knowledge base.

You are right that I am sharing learned information that I cannot test. You got any pics of your wind tunnel and AB sized radar? Thanks.

 

[_Windrider_]

Yes, it does really matter.

Manipulation of MV is bad practice and leads to a host of inaccuracies in your prediction, most notably due to temperature variations which leads to Mach number, which is directly related to your bullet's drag. Check out their podcast on YouTube, Jayden explains this very clearly and presents a lot of visual aids to reinforce this concept.

We can't change how gravity affects a bullet either. Gravity is gravity....

I didn’t mean it like changing gravity itself, I should have been clearer. Yes gravity is gravity. I meant the bullets ability to resist or fight gravity longer (speed, better BC or AF Factor or whatever you want to use).

 

[Long Range 338]

In response to OP, I own both, use both and enjoy both products. It really comes down to what you are doing and what ancillary gear you have to go with it.
The AB kestrel is prolific and easier to find than the 4DOF. I’ve never used the 4DOF kestrel nor seen one personally. The AB really has won by being the first to get in on all the integrations and military contracts. Getting rangefinders, weather stations, scopes, etc to talk has made them plenty of money.
I also own a dozen apps on my phone to nerd out with. Amongst these are AB and 4DOF. Both work but if I had to choose one over the other it would be the 4DOF due to ease of use and less truing needed. Both are modified point mass calculators but before the CDMs, AB was pure crap - as is trying to use the BC calculator included in 4DOF.
I agree with Caylen’s take and point of view. In the end we are old dogs and new tricks don’t come easy.

 

[Ksracer]

@CaylenW tbf, you should be clear with the users here that you're sponsored by Hornady so that may (or may not) influence your replies here.

I'm glad you mentioned that. I never would have guessed otherwise........

 

[Matches Malone]

Yes, it does really matter.

Manipulation of MV is bad practice and leads to a host of inaccuracies in your prediction, most notably due to temperature variations which leads to Mach number, which is directly related to your bullet's drag. Check out their podcast on YouTube, Jayden explains this very clearly and presents a lot of visual aids to reinforce this concept.

We can't change how gravity affects a bullet either. Gravity is gravity....

What’s your take on the kestrel directions for MV truing?