• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Range Report B.C. Pejas vs 6DOF?

Sako man

profesional dilettante
Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
  • Sep 7, 2012
    3,162
    3,044
    Galactic Sector ZZ9 Alpha Xray Plural.
    I researching Pejsa it seems that a standard G1 constant model for retardation would be somewhat incomplete. So, it "assumes one invariable drag function" As we know many modern bullets can exhibit behavior of multiple forms across the life of it's trajectory. I.E. G1-G7. However It does seem to have some alternate slope constants for slower machs.

    I am not arguing that there is not empirical data that Pejsa is effective (it's obviously effective). But is seems that it's somewhat of a sandwich fix. As well appears that it's geared for supersonic transform.

    My question is: how does Pejsa ascertain transsonic behavior?

    I would imagine that a 6DOF calculation involving all pertinent data (Mv, Da, Temp, etc..etc) would derive a much more accurate solution as there would be no cross over calculations/curves for the sonic/subsonic-transsonic variation, only Cp shift through a mach range.

    My second question: Though seemingly much more accurate is 6DOF unnecessary? Or do ballistics programs want to move in that direction?

    Perhaps this is simply academic as such intense fluid (air is a fluid) calculations are currently not possible with handheld devices. But in the day of multithreading and cloud computing I can see a PDA type device that simply uploads parameters to be calculated in cloud and spits back a value/fire solution to the user real time.

    Either way, my understanding is incomplete, but as I understand it Pejsa is as well? I have not doubt that someone will shoot my statement to swiss cheese, but this is what I am looking for, some understanding.

    Thanks
     
    6DOF is practically inaccessible. I don't doubt computers will catch up, but that's not the big problem. The data required is just too hard to come by outside of a handful of military bullets. And, yes, it's unnecessary. The important (relatively) parts like spin drift and Coriolis that are not considered by 3DOF methods can be approximated pretty well and used to adjust the 3DOF results. What 6DOF gets you is better understanding of yaw, spin, and stability. It's helpful for bullet design, not so much for figuring out where the bullet it going to land.

    And yes, the results of any method are only as good as the drag data is modeled, Pejsa or otherwise. But I think you misunderstand the point of Pejsa. It's not to use the G1 drag function. It's to use the drag function as a starting point, and then adjust it to better fit the actual results. It's a clever, succinct mathematical manipulation. Similar things can be done with point mass calculations (which I think is the better way to approach the problem - others disagree), but with Pejsa, it's sort of the centerpiece and you can't argue with the results some guys are getting.

    All in all, this is pretty academic, though. We've got the ability to predict WAY out there so long as you do the prep work. At some point, other factors will dominate (maximum velocity, bullet quality, etc - not to mention wind). There isn't much practical work to be done for sporting ballistics outside of data collection and bullet design. The trajectory calculation part is a solved problem.
     
    To answer the OP's question:

    Pejsa's approach to transsonic is to essentially avoid it. Shooting further means a bigger/faster bullet that does not enter the transsonic region. It's a known issue with the approximations that Dr. Pejsa uses. His method is highly effective up to a point and then it falls apart quickly. This is absolutely not to say that Dr. Pejsa's approach isn't useful, it's simple and easy to use for ranges that are well past where 90% of small arms fire is sent, the issues arise when the ranges pass the normally accepted "max effective" distances for modern calibers.

    The 6DOF approach with certain aeroballistic coefficients is, as damoncali mentioned, quite difficult to model for many people due to the problem of getting reliable data.

    To my knowledge there are very few that have the sparkshadow photography needed to empirially ascertain the data, the other method that is being looked at iwth interest is Computational Supersonic/Transonic Fluids. There are some solvers out there which are capable of doing supersonic but the transonic causes issues with a lot of them. Not many commercially available codes can handle it.

    Assuming that you get ahold of one of the codes that CAN do it, or you're versed enough to build your own transonic model, then the next step is finding an operator that understands the fluids well enough to know if the information coming out is reasonable or digitized bull.

    At this time, I'm only aware of 1 civilian group that has the expertise and is actively working in small arms projectiles to do this and that is the company that I co-founded. Our CFD simulations have demonstrated accuracy in the transonic drag realm that compare to <2% total error from acoustic chronograph and Doppler Radar test data on almost all of the projectiles analyzed and tested with the tightest being the 7mm Hornady 162 Amax showing error of just under 1% overall from launch to sound barrier crossing where the acoustic data becomes unreliable. Furthermore the Lapua Doppler data released in the past decade shows some trends at velocities under 600fps which were unexplained that CFD has provided insight into "why" and once the flow visualization is available it makes perfect sense.

    Comparatively, fast-design codes like PRODAS and QuickDesign are reliable for +/-10% regularly, sometimes as tight as 5-6% but mostly it is reliable for trend behavior and not actual pinpoint accuracy. This is the realm which is mostly an underdeveloped market in my opinion as the state of the art in aeroballistic coefficient prediction has somewhat plateaued without the application of high fidelity, transonic, turbulent CFD.
     
    Last edited:
    I really don't get the argument for transonic or beyond, on a practical level anyway. Sure for an academic experiment, by all means, explore that, but practically speaking the increased sales pitches around the crossing into and beyond transonic befuddles me.

    Competitively, why would you want to approach that point ? We have better barrels, bullets, and powders, if you are close pick a better bullet. Stay above 1300fps at your target range, cause less you're not winning anything.

    Combat wise, I get it even less. You're personal danger space is generally speaking 600m, if you have to take a high value target at 1000 yards or just beyond, you have the 338LM. Any shots taken in the extended range are usually just for the entertainment factor. If you are giving up your position as a small sniper team on the off chance you do something beyond your max effective range, you're not very smart.

    For the hobbyist, ok, if it's there, and you can see it, sure, but most people are gonna walk them in, so it doesn't matter. Still with the cost of ammo, why waste it shooting beyond your max effective range.

    I heard the argument for faster twist barrels to help "penetrate" the transonic region, and I had to ask why ? Even if you could accurately predict the drop, the wind is gonna change a lot of what happens as the bullet is no longer flying as effectively so the wind will trip it up, not just drop. So if you need to shoot that far, get a better bullet, if one doesn't exist, ask yourself do you really need to take that shot ? Can you even identify one target from another, as in, there are 4 people standing around in this, "beyond transonic range" and you have to shoot a specific one... can you reliability say, "It's the third one from the left" or not ?

    I completely understand getting as accurate data as possible, but as noted, honest accurate data is not so simple. Sure you can model, simulate and flat rate, but are we being realistic with the expectations ? Is it a practical exercise to lob a 175gr 308 to one mile ? or it is a vanity project ?
     
    At this time, I'm only aware of 1 civilian group that has the expertise and is actively working in small arms projectiles to do this and that is the company that I co-founded.

    Comparatively, fast-design codes like PRODAS and QuickDesign are reliable for +/-10% regularly, sometimes as tight as 5-6% but mostly it is reliable for trend behavior and not actual pinpoint accuracy. This is the realm which is mostly an underdeveloped market in my opinion as the state of the art in aeroballistic coefficient prediction has somewhat plateaued without the application of high fidelity, transonic, turbulent CFD.

    Interesting! Like anything, the more I read the more I realize I don't understand on the subject. Thank you for the responses. It's probable that I'm missing the point of Pejas?

    I would think there is some practical use for projectile calculation into transsonic? Im sure a subject that many have tried to crack. As well, and as stated it's impractical for the tactical marksman to even worry about these issues, I would agree with that. I am just curious about the full picture and my answers are out in the tertiary. That said this is fun stuff to delve into.

    I was overjoyed this morning when I realized that we have a developers license of ProE with a license of EFD pro fluids for Wildfire at work. I will have to slum it with a 3D/3DoF model. Yes, I or one of my students would have to find code for some of the gravitational/celestial mechanics if we want to have a full model that includes coriollis etc..., but that is probably a simple rotational/gravitational calc. Time to put the computing farm to work! I will probably start with a .308 model and de stabilize it to see what happens. If I get something of notability I will post it.

    I'm guessing PRODAS is non commercial therefor out of reach.

    Lastly I found some great e books that cover white papers on dynamic stability of small projectiles etc., math aside a really interesting read. Multiple mentions of PRODAS sim.

    an example.
    Ballistics 2011: 26th International Symposium - Google Books

    Thanks again.
     
    Last edited:
    PRODAS is commercial - google it. No idea what it costs. I suspect it depends on the buyer. I highly suggest looking into Robert McCoy's book, Modern Exterior Ballistics if this stuff is interesting. It's the most concise, clear explanation I've come across (although no Pejsa - you'll have to get his book for that). But it goes through all of this sort of thing short of CFD, which was coming into existence as McCoy was wrapping up his career.

    Here's a chapter by chapter review: Modern Exterior Ballistics by Robert McCoy | Bison Ballistics

    This paper is an good overview of what goes into getting 6DOF data: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA530895

    And of course, Bryan Litz's book is a great overview in layman's language. Home

    Unfortunately, the interesting stuff is not in any book that I am aware of. There is lots of good stuff in papers done by the military research labs, but unfortunately, a lot of it, especially the old stuff, is not easy to come across.

    But yes, the useful/practical stuff here is in advancing bullet design in my view. We're fairly well stuck at "good enough" at the moment, but I bet there's a good bit more to be done. Stuff that can possibly extend the effective range of current cartridges. Maybe we can get .338 Lapua performance out of a smaller package. Maybe we can make the .308 more competitive at 1000 yards. Or make the .223 reach out a little farther.
     
    This paper is an good overview of what goes into getting 6DOF data: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA530895

    But yes, the useful/practical stuff here is in advancing bullet design in my view. We're fairly well stuck at "good enough" at the moment, but I bet there's a good bit more to be done. Stuff that can possibly extend the effective range of current cartridges. Maybe we can get .338 Lapua performance out of a smaller package. Maybe we can make the .308 more competitive at 1000 yards. Or make the .223 reach out a little farther.


    Really great material here. Very interesting analisys on spin rates. Looks like there is a lot of snap shot extrapolation, not sure yet.

    In doing further research ProE has a lot of tools for dealing with 6DOF so I will have yaw/pirch/role capabilities as well as the XYZ transforms. Modern bullets though aerodynamically advanced are fairly simple solid structures. I am going to try to run simulations using different material densities to try to move the center of mass further forward. As well I think there are things that can be done with shape (non laminar radial fillets/bumps?) to create pressure waves that might help further aid in stability. Once again no doubt this has all been tried before but I'm hoping to get creative.

    Yes Litz's book is very fun, I find my self repeating many of it's chapter.

    Thank you for the feedback and sources.
     
    I really don't get the argument for transonic or beyond, on a practical level anyway......

    Competitively, why would you want to approach that point ? We have better barrels, bullets, and powders, if you are close pick a better bullet. Stay above 1300fps at your target range, cause less you're not winning anything.
    In some cases this approach works, in others it may not. As there may not be better barrels/bullets/powders, or they may push the cost (or other constraints) over the edge. In the end, the choice is between taking the shot or not.

    Combat wise, I get it even less. You're personal danger space is generally speaking 600m, if you have to take a high value target at 1000 yards or just beyond, you have the 338LM. Any shots taken in the extended range are usually just for the entertainment factor. If you are giving up your position as a small sniper team on the off chance you do something beyond your max effective range, you're not very smart.
    First, shooting from beyond 1000m, and with a suppressor, and from a well-concealed position - how likely are you to give up your position?

    Second - I thought the main reason for staying in supersonic was the inability of the current ballistic calculators (and collected dope :)) to compute the trajectory accurately enough for a hit once the bullet goes through the transonic range. If there was an affordable way to compute the trajectory all the way through subsonic - why not use it? The bullet still carries more than enough energy to do the job...?

    For the hobbyist, ok, if it's there, and you can see it, sure, but most people are gonna walk them in, so it doesn't matter. Still with the cost of ammo, why waste it shooting beyond your max effective range.
    I think the whole point of bohem's effort is to extend that max effective range, or at least remove one obstacle on the way of extending it (inability to predict the trajectory beyond certain distance).

    ...Even if you could accurately predict the drop, the wind is gonna change a lot of what happens as the bullet is no longer flying as effectively so the wind will trip it up, not just drop.
    This is an excellent point, and I concede here. It doesn't help much to correctly compute the drop only to have the bullet miss sideways by an unpredictable amount. Still, it would be fun from mathematical point of view if we could predict at least the drop correctly. And there were projects that tried to use high-tech to determine what the actual wind is along the entire bullet trace.

    So if you need to shoot that far, get a better bullet, if one doesn't exist, ask yourself do you really need to take that shot?
    If you need to take a shot, it's not because you happened to have a great tool for it. You get your mission/target, and you try to pick the best tool from what's available to accomplish it. You may decide "there's no tool that would allow me to do this mission with high enough probability of success, therefore scrub." But it would be a forced decision.

    Can you even identify one target from another, as in, there are 4 people standing around in this, "beyond transonic range" and you have to shoot a specific one... can you reliability say, "It's the third one from the left" or not?
    Aw, just get all the four, to be on the safe side! :) :)

    Sure you can model, simulate and flat rate, but are we being realistic with the expectations? Is it a practical exercise to lob a 175gr 308 to one mile? or it is a vanity project ?
    If it can be done with a decent degree of reliability (and your wind deflection point is well-taken) - then sure it is a practical exercise. Until then it's not even a vanity...
     
    @mouse07410,

    I have shot beyond 2400 yards and was not shooting Transonic so tell me who exactly "needs" to shoot by beyond transonic and for "what" reason ?

    Units that are tasked with over the horizon type missions have money and have access to any piece of equipment necessary, so what is the practical reason for shooting beyond transonic aside from EGO... I have worked with some of the best units in the World and have yet to hear any one of them discuss a reason for this.

    Guessing is not fact, and playing what if can go on forever. Practically speaking the majority of engagements are taken inside 400m.

    Who says the current models don't accurately predict drop ? is it a case of not predicting drop accurately or all the other factors cause a bigger issue, or even more so, no need to bother with it so there is very little data ?

    What threat that is beyond transonic needs to be eliminated and what do you think your accuracy rate would be even with an accurate drop prediction. I have shot and scored ELR beyond 1500m on 3 occasion in the last 2 years. Scored, it shows an average of 3 shots necessary to hit a man sized target (static) once you cross 1500m. Are there 1st and 2nd round hits, absolutely, my last outing I hit from 1800m to 2200m all using 2 rounds... on static targets. Those were not transonic and I had well verified data.

    Paper examples not withstanding, the reality of the field is, you are not accurately doping the wind (which can also effect elevation) as well you have no idea the right MV before the shot. Deviation in MV have an effect at ELR ranges, and you have nothing but a known, or at least some what known SD / ES for the shot. That ES can cause a miss, so while you hope that round is good, it can be bad.

    You guys plugging numbers and guessing at this, don't trump the practical realities of being in the field. We can hit things beyond, absolutely but not because we 'have to" because we want too. Big difference. Clueless ramblings you read in a book don't change the facts on the ground.
     
    @mouse07410,
    I have shot beyond 2400 yards and was not shooting Transonic so tell me who exactly "needs" to shoot by beyond transonic and for "what" reason?
    I do, because I want to "do more with less". I.e., come closer with cheaper tools to what better and more expensive tools could do. For those who already employ the best existing tools - it would be a possibility to extend them even further.

    If you could shoot for 4000m (and correctly identify the target, and have a means to correctly dope the wind across the entire trajectory, etc. etc.) - why wouldn't you?

    Units that are tasked with over the horizon type missions have money and have access to any piece of equipment necessary, so what is the practical reason for shooting beyond transonic aside from EGO... I have worked with some of the best units in the World and have yet to hear any one of them discuss a reason for this.

    Guessing is not fact, and playing what if can go on forever. Practically speaking the majority of engagements are taken inside 400m.
    Your point is well-taken.

    But would you mind describing the reasons why the majority of engagements are taken within that range?


    Who says the current models don't accurately predict drop?
    Ballisticians do. Most recently - Brian Litz, who I discussed this with a year or so ago. His point (as far as I understood it then and correctly recall now) was that so many factors influence the bullet when it's in transonic region that it is not feasible to compute its trajectory through it with acceptable accuracy. You would get the numbers, but the variations would be too great for the numbers to be of practical use. At least that's what I understood.

    is it a case of not predicting drop accurately or all the other factors cause a bigger issue, or even more so, no need to bother with it so there is very little data?
    I think it's the latter - all the other factors causing bigger issues (including bullet instability affecting the drop as well as lateral deviation). As for no need to bother - I don't know.

    Paper examples not withstanding, the reality of the field is, you are not accurately doping the wind (which can also effect elevation) as well you have no idea the right MV before the shot. Deviation in MV have an effect at ELR ranges, and you have nothing but a known, or at least some what known SD / ES for the shot. That ES can cause a miss, so while you hope that round is good, it can be bad.
    Points conceded.

    You guys plugging numbers and guessing at this, don't trump the practical realities of being in the field. We can hit things beyond, absolutely but not because we 'have to" because we want too. Big difference. Clueless ramblings you read in a book don't change the facts on the ground.
    I cannot argue with you the practical realities of the field, as they are today. But I think those realities may/could change. Or they may not - but I don't think we can be certain of that now.
     
    Last edited:
    Ballisticians do. Most recently - Brian Litz, who I discussed this with a year or so ago. His point (as far as I understood it then and correctly recall now) was that so many factors influence the bullet when it's in transonic region that it is not feasible to compute its trajectory through it with acceptable accuracy. You would get the numbers, but the variations would be too great for the numbers to be of practical use. At least that's what I understood.

    Are the numbers wrong or are the factors the issue ? And again, if we have determined less than 1% of all shooting goes beyond transonic, is the effort worth it ? Is it the bullet, the conditions in the field, the shooter, or all of the above, in which case if "all of the above" what difference would it make if the computer is right ? And too correct it, "a ballistician does, many of the others are aligned with my school of thought.

    I do, because I want to "do more with less". I.e., come closer with cheaper tools to what better and more expensive tools could do. For those who already employ the best existing tools - it would be a possibility to extend them even further.

    Correct me if I am wrong, you are in MA, where are you shooting "too 1000m" let alone beyond. I know my ranges I have here in CO i can easily shoot beyond 2685m if I was inclined, but being at 5000 ft with an average DA of 8000, shooting far is easy. What "system" are you hoping to push beyond it's max effective range, and by how far ? Because you are nothing more than a "hobbyist" what is wrong with walking it in and recording the dope, building an actual dope card, that can then be worked into a existing computer program ? Can you save a favorite that is correct inside 1000 and another favorite that is adjusted for actual dope that is saved as Beyond 1000 ? I know old school, going out and shooting it and record the data, but hey if it works.

    So what your personal reality, the idea of being able to shoot your 308 to 1500m, (cause we both know you can't in MA) or actually doing it cause you live in an area like I do where I can at will ?

    Also in doing so would you feel confident shooting something living at that distance and staying within ethical bounds ? If not then again I ask, "why bother" .

    We had a class here, mostly 308s, we had a target at 1 Mile. At the end of the day, we let guys go free for all on it, they dumped box after box. Good conditions, good feedback on the dirt, and still only I hit it ... i was using a 260. 10 guys unloading and nobody hit it, even with ample feedback... so if you are looking to save money on your system, why would waste money on shooting it ?

    Would you shoot a 1000 yard FTR with a 16" AR using 55gr ammo because you had a computer that said you could ? Cause that is what you are telling everyone, because Bryan and computer said it was possible we should do it. I bet Bryan looks at the numbers and chooses the best option and not something sub standard simply because he can.
     
    Lowlight said:
    Guessing is not fact, and playing what if can go on forever. Practically speaking the majority of engagements are taken inside 400m.


    mouse07410 said:
    Your point is well-taken.

    But would you mind describing the reasons why the majority if engagements are taken within that range?


    A fairly recent study on engagements taken by interviewing snipers in both theaters concluded that the average engagement distance was around 450 meters +/- ( the actual number was an odd ball number that I don't recall but it was basically close to 450m). Thats not to say longer and or shorter distance shots were not reported, just that the average engagement distance was in the 400-450m range. A lot of it depends on where you are operating at, city/urban vs mountain/rural areas. Typically those in the rural areas reported longer engagement distances than those who were in the urban areas but both combined "averaged" in that 400m+ zone.
     
    @Papa Zero Three

    Average is a better way to put it... and I agree with the average. (the point I was sort of leaning towards)

    So the real question is, while there are certainly engagements happening further, what percentage of shots do you feel have to be taken that are beyond the max effective range of, "on average" a 300WM at 6000 ft Above sea level ?

    We certainly know the PSR program has added the 338LM to the mix, the XM2010 is 300WM and the new Mk248 is a helluva great round, so are we talking a max effective of 1800m ? Does that sound reasonable ? If so, how often to you see a team engaging targets beyond 1800m out of necessity and not for the entertainment value of the shot.
     
    Frank, the other points back and forth I'm not really part of, you guys have at it.

    To address the question of "why" though and particularly "if a better bullet doesn't exist, perhaps you need a something different" the goal of the research is to drive forward the state of the art.

    In 1910 a precision rifle scope was little more than a couple pieces of wire and some eyeglasses in a brass tube. Same in 1940, in 1950 it was getting better, in 1970 HVT's were engaged past 600m semi-regularly and today we regularly & accurately engage 1000m targets with calibers only burning 35-45gr or so of powder. Something considered "really stretching it" just 25 years ago

    For 99%+ of the shooters out there, you make quite valid points. There are those sick individuals (be they mathematicians, engineers, or just enthusiasts with money to burn) that want to push the envelope and shoot past the sound barrier. The challenge is not so much putting a bullet into a 12" plate from a mile with a 308 or 30-06, the challenge and allure to me is the understanding of such a shot at a fundamental level so that accurate prediction of a firing solution happens regularly.

    I understand that this is not field practical precision, it is fiddling and tinkering and science lab stuff. Field practical precision for me is a 1000yd shot with a DOPE card broken down every 500' DA and a Kestrel. It works regularly enough to score FRH's on HVT's during a competition. The prediction research flows immediately to my DOPE card and my approach to precision shooting at a practical level.

    I'm not advocating the fielded use of a 300WM against HVT's at 2500m for shits and grins, however making a bullet that allows regular engagement of HVT's at such a distance would be quite the development would it not?

    The state of the art is not there yet. But as I alluded to with my comments about precision optics and state of the art, we're getting somewhere every day.


    So, I don't mean to get between you and mouse however, my initial comments above appeared to have been misunderstood or at least taken awry in the discussion and I wanted to clarify our position.
     
    @Papa Zero Three

    Average is a better way to put it... and I agree with the average. (the point I was sort of leaning towards)

    So the real question is, while there are certainly engagements happening further, what percentage of shots do you feel have to be taken that are beyond the max effective range of, "on average" a 300WM at 6000 ft Above sea level ?

    We certainly know the PSR program has added the 338LM to the mix, the XM2010 is 300WM and the new Mk248 is a helluva great round, so are we talking a max effective of 1800m ? Does that sound reasonable ? If so, how often to you see a team engaging targets beyond 1800m out of necessity and not for the entertainment value of the shot.


    Well I do know that when the collective minds met on this, the premise was on shooting a man size tgt with a 12" w by 20" high tgt area (base of neck to waistline) at 1000m. I won't go into explaining the ballistics involved with 7.62/300Wm/338 as you well aware of them. But the take away from it was the danger space involved for each, that being 20, 32, 39meters and that past 600m a .1 mil error subtends out to a miss of the danger area. So the thought being they wanted a round with a low trajectory, a larger danger area, that allowed for range estimation errors out to 1000m would give the shooter the better chances of a hit at 1000m.

    So my personal experience and take on this(having humped a Barret 50 up mountains) is that anything past 1000m is more for Anti-material type target shooting in combat than for shooting people in combat. I am sure there are minds at echelons above reality (and even team level) that disagree with my line of reasoning but I think I am being realistic. Could a guy engage a man size tgt out to 1800m with 338? Sure but I don't see it being a major requirement, rather it should be a far end of spectrum capability IMO. Otherwise it is like you stated, you end up lobbing/walking rounds in on the tgt and in combat, they typically don't remain static, especially once you open fire on them. For people on a one way range doing ELR, the ranges go way beyond that but I think of that as an apples and oranges comparison to what guys in the box need/do.
     
    My very first sentence is this thread,

    I really don't get the argument for transonic or beyond, on a practical level anyway. Sure for an academic experiment, by all means, explore that, but practically speaking the increased sales pitches around the crossing into and beyond transonic befuddles me.

    Need I say more ?
     
    Been a while since I read your first post, I forgot about that statement, I had not checked back on this and was surprised to see it had gained some momentum and my name was referenced.

    Yes, I agree with your sentiment overall.
     
    400 meters average sniper engagement distance ties in with the effective ranges of the AK47 and RPG.



    A fairly recent study on engagements taken by interviewing snipers in both theaters concluded that the average engagement distance was around 450 meters +/- ( the actual number was an odd ball number that I don't recall but it was basically close to 450m). Thats not to say longer and or shorter distance shots were not reported, just that the average engagement distance was in the 400-450m range. A lot of it depends on where you are operating at, city/urban vs mountain/rural areas. Typically those in the rural areas reported longer engagement distances than those who were in the urban areas but both combined "averaged" in that 400m+ zone.
     
    I think people confuse my tone towards things like the differences I see in the academic side of shooting vs the practical side of things. My real issue with a lot of what I push back against is the "marketing" of the concepts. The idea that if you, as a new shooter starts adjusting for Spin Drift you see better results. That checking a box inside you for App for SD or CE will some how make all the difference in your shooting. When the reality of it is, for most shooters' it's lost in the noise. Or worst, when you see guys dialing SD at 600 yards with as much as 2+ Minutes at 1000, that they believe they are actually accounting for science and not their poor fundamentals. I remember reading a post, years ago when a guy wrote, "I was never able to hit my target at 400 yards until I started dialing SD"... that is a true quote and why I push against certain things.

    If you read the "about" for Sniper's Hide, you have seen this line:

    Sniper’s Hide is a community, brought together by the knowledge of the science and the appreciation of the art involved in long range shooting.

    Transonic accuracy has become a sales pitch. That bothers me, sure I want to know what it takes, I want the best estimate of where transonic falls so I can account for it, but to sell someone on the "idea" (today) that there is better mousetrap beyond transonic is very misleading. I understand it is way to separate you from the next guy, as there is a lot of really smart guys looking to make it big selling the next widget to the military. From there it trickles down, the buzz starts, "well you know the military is very interested", yada yada, yada. This bothers me...

    When the sale pitch is put on the table it should fall within practical, and not the academic side of things. Absolutely explore the academic, I have gone out of my way to test and verify things, from bullets to barrels. But I am not here to sell you on my idea. I have a ton of ideas, that i am sure some day will be a reality. I mean come on, I watch as much TV as the next, and can certainly marry fighter tech to gun tech... some day. So why not let me sell you on it today. Now that is extreme, but not far off the mark. And certainly don't get me wrong, i will go out of my way to help refine it if asked. Never once have I stuck my hand out and said, "sure pay me" ... If it speeds up the process or forwards the cause I am more than willing to do my part.

    This site was built to exchange ideas, to verify, to separate fact from fantasy. Most of the guys who don't like what I have to say, often failed the practical test in my opinion, which is usually my first mistake, not holding up their great idea as gospel. To me the Science side should not butt heads with the Art side of shooting. When they do you need to go back and decide which is more important. It's why I like Pesja, it's why I talk to guys who are not focusing on one thing, but rather are more practical in the approach.

    Sure there are great things on the horizon, but if you have to do something extremely unconventional to see the results, well maybe that great idea needs more work. Not saying it is bad, just saying don't sell it as ready to wear if you need it custom fit by a tailor only found in the jungles of Thailand, after it was blessed by a Medicine Man from the Congo.

    Not against it, just not for a lot of the way it is sold to people.
     
    B.C. Pejas vs 6DOF?

    I think we're on the same page, after all.

    I'm defending the scientific part (and hope that it may develop into practical some day), not the marketing one.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free
     
    Last edited: