I don't think so. Just having a discussion. There is a lot that gets lost in this format, so it's pretty common to see people in violent agreement on this topic.
- Thread starter Fatelvis
- Start date
I don't think so. Just having a discussion. There is a lot that gets lost in this format, so it's pretty common to see people in violent agreement on this topic.
That's a whole 'nother issue. I really don't think we disagree in substance. There is still the matter of garbage in garbage out. You could argue that we have a better grasp of the true G1 BC's for a lot of bullets, and the uncertainty in BC is a problem for G7's since hardly anyone is publishing them. G1's work within a certain tolerance, and usually that tolerance is well within "good enough". I would never say G1's don't work - I've used them for decades. But - all else equal (that's an important qualifier), G7's will usually work within a smaller tolerance, providing better results. It's better vs good enough.
I'm just saying we ought to use the better system. Not because the other one isn't going to get the job done, but because there is no reason not to. That means manufacturers should get on board and do their testing with G7's. Give us the the same level of data that we have for the G1 and we'll all be better off. It's a small advancement, to be sure, but it's real.
Do I recommend beginners get wrapped up over it? No. On a list of 1000 things to think about where 1 is sight alignment and 1000 is primer weight consistency, it's probably around number 785, a few notches higher than spin drift.
Shit. I should have been sorting my primers by weight too!
yeah... don't do that
Don't worry I won't, I don't bother sorting anything by weight at this point.
The problem here seems to be thinking that the G7 BC is 'better', because it is a better match to the drag curve produced by the typical boattail bullet, as compared to the curve from a G1 BC. That is certainly true, but that is not the actual question. What we need to know is does the solver we have chosen to use produce accurate trajectory predictions with the BC value we have available or have chosen to use.
It has been quite clearly demonstrated that modern programs, like Coldbore, FFS, and Quick Target, will in fact produce a trajectory prediction that is accurate inside a click value, as compared to actual Doppler radar track data, even when using a G1 BC value. Since the 'error' in the G1 curve is well known, there are a number of methods available which yield a correct solution to the trajectory question despite the 'inaccurate' BC drag profile. The Pejsa method, as implemented in FFS, as well as Coldbore's own method can deliver better actual predictions than a simple G7 solver will, no matter that the G7 BC is 'better'
What matters should be the delivery of an accurate solution. Since very few bullet companies publish an accurate G7 BC value, G7 is not my personal system of choice. The fact that Bryan has produced a list of G7 values for popular bullets does not make that a better answer, since my bullet may not be in the list, and new and/or untested bullets become available all the time. For example, my current copy of his book does not have a test value for the quite excellent Hornady 285gr .338 bullet. Hence a certain amount of resistance to being told "You must use a G7 BC if you want an accurate ballistic program", which is absolutely NOT the case.
To simply state repeatedly that G7 is better is to fail to understand the actual problem, which is accurate trajectory calculations.
It has been quite clearly demonstrated that modern programs, like Coldbore, FFS, and Quick Target, will in fact produce a trajectory prediction that is accurate inside a click value, as compared to actual Doppler radar track data, even when using a G1 BC value. Since the 'error' in the G1 curve is well known, there are a number of methods available which yield a correct solution to the trajectory question despite the 'inaccurate' BC drag profile. The Pejsa method, as implemented in FFS, as well as Coldbore's own method can deliver better actual predictions than a simple G7 solver will, no matter that the G7 BC is 'better'
What matters should be the delivery of an accurate solution. Since very few bullet companies publish an accurate G7 BC value, G7 is not my personal system of choice. The fact that Bryan has produced a list of G7 values for popular bullets does not make that a better answer, since my bullet may not be in the list, and new and/or untested bullets become available all the time. For example, my current copy of his book does not have a test value for the quite excellent Hornady 285gr .338 bullet. Hence a certain amount of resistance to being told "You must use a G7 BC if you want an accurate ballistic program", which is absolutely NOT the case.
To simply state repeatedly that G7 is better is to fail to understand the actual problem, which is accurate trajectory calculations.
Listen to CoryT,
These guys are arguing what they read in a book, where originally you could not get a G7 unless you bought the book... the see the problem with that.
Also as noted, it's not so widely available that is works across every situation, which leads to a very important point... G7 tends to work better in programs written using Litz data, see the conflict here, it's also interesting that programs written NOT using PM and his details, do EXCEPTIONALLY well with G1. See the point there ?
The purity of the curve model is absolutely positively meaningless to anyone but a guy writing a program using true statements, however, most programs are written in a modified way that ignore the purity of the curve. So who cares what the original curve looks like if the modifications being used today are accounting for it.
Everyone ignored my note on Custom Curves being used now by Bryan, as well as the fact you'll soon see Banded BC from G7 to increase accuracy. It works well for G1 because it works... why does banding work, but our systems have too many variables for a single BC to acknowledge. The Scope variations, The Barrel Variations, The Bullet Variations, the Muzzle Velocity Variations, do we understand that. Modifications matter to the end result the ultimate goal.
Guys who are academically minded and not rooted in practical realities love to quote figures from a book and decry the real world variations that are seen every single day. This is one of these cases. Get out and shoot more, then hype immediately fades into the background.
These guys are arguing what they read in a book, where originally you could not get a G7 unless you bought the book... the see the problem with that.
Also as noted, it's not so widely available that is works across every situation, which leads to a very important point... G7 tends to work better in programs written using Litz data, see the conflict here, it's also interesting that programs written NOT using PM and his details, do EXCEPTIONALLY well with G1. See the point there ?
The purity of the curve model is absolutely positively meaningless to anyone but a guy writing a program using true statements, however, most programs are written in a modified way that ignore the purity of the curve. So who cares what the original curve looks like if the modifications being used today are accounting for it.
Everyone ignored my note on Custom Curves being used now by Bryan, as well as the fact you'll soon see Banded BC from G7 to increase accuracy. It works well for G1 because it works... why does banding work, but our systems have too many variables for a single BC to acknowledge. The Scope variations, The Barrel Variations, The Bullet Variations, the Muzzle Velocity Variations, do we understand that. Modifications matter to the end result the ultimate goal.
Guys who are academically minded and not rooted in practical realities love to quote figures from a book and decry the real world variations that are seen every single day. This is one of these cases. Get out and shoot more, then hype immediately fades into the background.
Come on, that's a little disingenuous. Nobody is parroting Litz - give us credit for having a little more understanding than that. And nobody has said that a G7 is perfect or that a custom function (which is what banding is, no matter the starting point) won't do a better job. Only that G7 is going to be more accurate than G1, which is akin to saying 5 is greater than 3 - it's pretty well documented and should not be controversial. If a program works well with a G1 it is because it was written to work around this fact. Kudos to whoever does that - there is more than one way to skin a cat. But what you're arguing at that point is not G1 vs G7, but this program vs that program. The OP's question was "which should I use - G1 or G7?" not "What is the absolute most accurate trajectory I can possibly come up with?", although that is also a worthwhile question. If it were asked, maybe the answers would be different. I know mine would be.
Real shooters know the answer to:
It's try both because they alternate based on the variations I discussed, as well as the Human Factor, as to which will give you a better (more accurate) solution.
The academe who argue that on (paper) G7 is, is the disingenuous part. Because we both know the either can provide the perfect solution, or both can provide an imperfect, but acceptable one. When you actually log off the computer, and go out and shoot, you learn that pretty fast. Hence the answer:
You have an iPhone with the ease, and ability to use both, so try it and see... which is the only accurate answer.
And I hate to break it too you, most of you here are parroting Litz, selectively ignoring the caveats.
It's try both because they alternate based on the variations I discussed, as well as the Human Factor, as to which will give you a better (more accurate) solution.
The academe who argue that on (paper) G7 is, is the disingenuous part. Because we both know the either can provide the perfect solution, or both can provide an imperfect, but acceptable one. When you actually log off the computer, and go out and shoot, you learn that pretty fast. Hence the answer:
You have an iPhone with the ease, and ability to use both, so try it and see... which is the only accurate answer.
And I hate to break it too you, most of you here are parroting Litz, selectively ignoring the caveats.
That's not at all what Frank said. A program is, however, only useful in it's ability to match reality. If you write an elegant program that follows the exact G7 curve , but produces results that do not correlate to actual trajectories, how exactly is that 'better', when I can use the G1 curve and a program that accounts for the differences and produces an answer that I can actually use? The fact that the G7 drag model is more accurate is meaningless, when I'm not directly using that information. I don't what to know the Cd value of the bullet at a particular point in space, I want the drop and drift value for a particular set of conditions. So long at whatever model and equations you use in the program get me to that value, the value is correct over the possible set of conditions I might reasonably find to shoot in and it's usable in the field, then that program has value.
I don't disagree. No program needs to expose the drag function to the user unless its aim is to help educate. The drag function is inherently an implementation detail. So when people ask about them, I sort of assume they are trying to understand the implementation.
Since pretty much no shooter wants to know what the drag curve would look like on a graph, exactly how is a G7 'more accurate', and thus an answer to "which BC value should I use?" The correct answer to the OP's question was another question, "What program are you using, and have you compared the output to reality using each BC value?"
If you simply say, "Use G7, it's ,more accurate", you are going to have a big problem when the program only runs on G1 values, in which case however good the G7 value might be, you are not going to get very good output.
If you simply say, "Use G7, it's ,more accurate", you are going to have a big problem when the program only runs on G1 values, in which case however good the G7 value might be, you are not going to get very good output.
They just don't understand the end results matter, not the calculation the computer used.
Patagonia ColdBore has the graphs available, and I have never used them once. I only care about the solution and how it matches my real world shooting.
if I wanted an exercise in theory I would just play Call of Duty all day. Or that long range shooting simulator.
Patagonia ColdBore has the graphs available, and I have never used them once. I only care about the solution and how it matches my real world shooting.
if I wanted an exercise in theory I would just play Call of Duty all day. Or that long range shooting simulator.
G3.5
take what G1 and G7 gives you and split it in the middle
take what G1 and G7 gives you and split it in the middle
Actually, I believe the OP's question was whether he should use G1 or G7 ON HIS iPHONE AE PROGRAM. I haven't used that specific program, but assume it uses multiple G1 plots like the others, so in effect, I think he IS asking what is the most accurate trajectory he can come up with, since he means how it relates to his program. Am I reading that right?
Guilty as charged. I read into it that he wanted to choose the basic g1 vs g7 option.
That's cool. It was a "nuanced" question, and the point wasn't that obvious.
Yes, the Iphone AE program uses multiple G1 plots. You are correct, I was asking which is generally more accurate. I'll have to wait until This Saturday to find out....unless I call in sick one day!
according to who or what ? Clearly not people actually shooting real bullets. Someone forgot to send them the memo.
do you mean in a vacuum or via a computer simulation or in the real world with the host of other variables at play.
My experience as well as others has not seen this consistent more accurate prediction. So on what plain of existence does this happen because on planet Earth it's about equal. Obviously the science is not surviving the air we breathe, maybe we should start specifying in a vacuum or computer simulation void of real world variables.
It's the exact amount of effort to get either one to work, And yield an accurate prediction.
You know, the world looks flat from where I stand. My real world daily activities do not prove to me that it could be round. Therefor I will stick to my opinion that it is flat. And I will harass and insult anyone who proposes otherwise....
--- aim small miss small ---
--- aim small miss small ---
The reason why there's so much controversy over the G1/G7 issue is because over the supersonic ranges most shoot, the error in G1 is minor. That doesn't make G1 'right', it's just not 'wrong enough' to manifest in a miss over short range.
Thinking about your choice of drag model is similar to the choice of accounting for Coriolis, spin drift, etc.. If your shooting application calls for it, then apply it, if not, don't. This is the important caveat that Frank is talking about. You wouldn't worry about Coriolis when engaging a 300 meter mover (I hope). Not that Coriolis doesn't exist for that shot, it's just not practically relevant to account for it on a shot like that and not worth arguing about. But if you're shooting at a stationary target a mile away, well that's an entirely different shot! You have to account for things in ELR which simply don't matter much thru supersonic range. So when people argue about which is 'right'; G1 or G7, my answer is: G7 is a more representative drag model for long range bullets, but you won't notice the error in the G1 predictions until way out there.
As for the solvers which use variations of G1 curves; most of them are morphed in some way to be more like a G7 curve, which naturally makes them more accurate. Confusion spreads because now there are examples of so called G1 based solvers 'working' at long range, when really they're not truly G1. Regardless, they can be made to predict trajectories accurately. My problem with these 'one-off' solvers is they're all different in the way that they morph the curve. Being a unique snowflake creates the problem that no standardized library of BC's will work as intended with that solver. Shooters can tweak in a BC for this bullet or that based on a lot of shooting. But my vision of what a solver should be is that it's capable if providing you with accurate predictions *before* you shoot long range. Accurate inputs equal accurate outputs from the get-go if the solver is self consistent and the drag model is accurate.
Frank points out that no program can ever be perfect because all rifles and bullets are different. I agree, but the caveat here is; *how* different? Effects like: various rifling patterns, bullet lot variations, stability, etc. will cause variations in a bullets BC making it impossible to predict trajectories perfectly. But all these effects typically add up to a very small amount (+/- 1% or 2%) over most of supersonic range. Your solver can give you very accurate (usually within a click) results over most of supersonic range when used correctly.
A common pair of arguments that you'll usually hear together are:
1) You don't have to worry about G7, G1 is good enough, and
2) Ballistic solvers aren't all that accurate, they're really just a starting point.
Think about that for a minute. Of course the predictions are only approximate if you feed the solver approximate inputs!
Thinking about your choice of drag model is similar to the choice of accounting for Coriolis, spin drift, etc.. If your shooting application calls for it, then apply it, if not, don't. This is the important caveat that Frank is talking about. You wouldn't worry about Coriolis when engaging a 300 meter mover (I hope). Not that Coriolis doesn't exist for that shot, it's just not practically relevant to account for it on a shot like that and not worth arguing about. But if you're shooting at a stationary target a mile away, well that's an entirely different shot! You have to account for things in ELR which simply don't matter much thru supersonic range. So when people argue about which is 'right'; G1 or G7, my answer is: G7 is a more representative drag model for long range bullets, but you won't notice the error in the G1 predictions until way out there.
As for the solvers which use variations of G1 curves; most of them are morphed in some way to be more like a G7 curve, which naturally makes them more accurate. Confusion spreads because now there are examples of so called G1 based solvers 'working' at long range, when really they're not truly G1. Regardless, they can be made to predict trajectories accurately. My problem with these 'one-off' solvers is they're all different in the way that they morph the curve. Being a unique snowflake creates the problem that no standardized library of BC's will work as intended with that solver. Shooters can tweak in a BC for this bullet or that based on a lot of shooting. But my vision of what a solver should be is that it's capable if providing you with accurate predictions *before* you shoot long range. Accurate inputs equal accurate outputs from the get-go if the solver is self consistent and the drag model is accurate.
Frank points out that no program can ever be perfect because all rifles and bullets are different. I agree, but the caveat here is; *how* different? Effects like: various rifling patterns, bullet lot variations, stability, etc. will cause variations in a bullets BC making it impossible to predict trajectories perfectly. But all these effects typically add up to a very small amount (+/- 1% or 2%) over most of supersonic range. Your solver can give you very accurate (usually within a click) results over most of supersonic range when used correctly.
A common pair of arguments that you'll usually hear together are:
1) You don't have to worry about G7, G1 is good enough, and
2) Ballistic solvers aren't all that accurate, they're really just a starting point.
Think about that for a minute. Of course the predictions are only approximate if you feed the solver approximate inputs!
G1 or G7?
Okay, I understand and agree, but if we calibrate our ballistics program, and assuming environmentals like wind are approximate and always changing anyway, what is the error difference of G1 vs G7 on an MOA target, and is this within the error range of poorly executing the fundamentals?
Meaning: For most people, G1 vs G7 it isn't a big enough consideration in making the shot, and it's not a substitute for doing the important work necessary to make the hit.
Okay, I understand and agree, but if we calibrate our ballistics program, and assuming environmentals like wind are approximate and always changing anyway, what is the error difference of G1 vs G7 on an MOA target, and is this within the error range of poorly executing the fundamentals?
Meaning: For most people, G1 vs G7 it isn't a big enough consideration in making the shot, and it's not a substitute for doing the important work necessary to make the hit.
Last edited:
I'm not exactly sure what your question is, but if you're saying that: "highly accurate trajectory predictions are wasted if you can't shoot well", then I agree with the statement, but not as an argument to deliberately choose less accurate prediction methods.
Using the same logic, you could say the same thing about a quality optic: "Forget about a NightForce, just use a $99 Walmart scope because there's a chance you'll jerk the trigger".
I apologize if I mistook your meaning; feel free to clarify if I got it wrong.
Doesn't Real World Experience + "Morphed G" = Custom Curve ?
So if experience has taught us the G1 value of .505 is more marketing and less reality, so a program like JBM gives us the 3 new BC values by default. Isn't that the same as getting a custom curve from anywhere else?
Custom Curves in my opinion = accurate results. Accurate results are the ultimate goal.
So if experience has taught us the G1 value of .505 is more marketing and less reality, so a program like JBM gives us the 3 new BC values by default. Isn't that the same as getting a custom curve from anywhere else?
Custom Curves in my opinion = accurate results. Accurate results are the ultimate goal.
G1 or G7?
Bryan, I agree with you that better predictive models are better than worse ones.
But I disagree with your Wal Mart scope analogy. There is no equivalence between G1 BC and an optic that doesn't work.
What I am saying is that unless one is seeking a better G model for ELR first round hits, and also using a ballistics program designed to properly use that model, G1 or G7 properly yields results well-within the error range of other factors that one can't control when making the shot.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bryan, I agree with you that better predictive models are better than worse ones.
But I disagree with your Wal Mart scope analogy. There is no equivalence between G1 BC and an optic that doesn't work.
What I am saying is that unless one is seeking a better G model for ELR first round hits, and also using a ballistics program designed to properly use that model, G1 or G7 properly yields results well-within the error range of other factors that one can't control when making the shot.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Thanks for all your responses guys. Bryan, your explanation clears some things up for me. And if I can get within a click or two for first round hits, I will be one happy camper. That is what I call a handy, accurate shooting tool! Thanks for your work.
I agree with you about custom curves having the highest potential to provide the most accurate drag modeling (not forgetting the caveat that G7 and even G1 BC's can be perfectly useful over supersonic range)
Here's how I view custom curves and tools for using them.
Suppose a programmer delivers a solver that is capable of running solutions based on custom curves, or gives a user the ability to 'morph' the curve such as stepped BC's. That solver is only 1/2 the equation. Without also providing accurate drag models for actual bullets, the solver is a blank slate. As a shooter, you have to fire many rounds at multiple distances, carefully measuring in whichever way you can, until you've tweaked the solver to match observed results. Only after you've done all that can that solver provide useful predictions based on custom modeling. Want to shoot another bullet? Go thru the whole process again. My point is that supplying the tool without the data only puts the burden on the shooter to generate his own data. Some may not mind this because people like to shoot! But lets face it, not all shooters have the proper equipment and/or know-how to gather data and accurately create their own models. As a shooter, my expectation is that when I buy a ballistics program it should have what it needs to work from shot 1. As a Ballistician, it's my goal to provide such complete solutions.
That's why I supply libraries of data which are accurate and compatible with my solvers. Promoting the use of G7 BC's is only supportable because there's a library of accurate G7 BC's to use. Likewise with custom curves. Several programs offer the effects of custom drag modeling, but how many of them offer a library of compatible and accurate drag models based on instrumented live fire?
Of course my BC and custom drag model libraries will never be 100% complete, but I'm working on it. If you're shooting a bullet that's not in the library, please contact me ([email protected]) with your request and I'll add it to the list to be tested and added to the library.
But why would you leave a factor you can control off the table? Pick the better model. The impact may be slight, but better is better. There is literally no cost to using G7 over G1, unlike the scope analogy where you get to save $1700.
My understanding is both FFS & CB 1 are sprinkled with a Doppler data. (Where available)
unless you have a big cross section of rifles to compare, Doppler would be the best single source.
And i'm pretty they do have just as much under the hood information as their accuracy is undeniable. I have routinely run multiple programs at the same time and found them to be spot on. This is not just my opinion, a lot of highly skilled shooters have done the same.
Same thing with your Kestrel, I immediately took it out, traveled with it and found it to be highly accurate. But I never use just one program, I may shoot based off one, but I reference multiple. I was out yesterday at a practice match that was being set up. I had the new ColdBore on a Windows Phone, your Kestrel and my iPhone using Ballistics. The rifle was new, the scope just mounted and the load was factory Hornady 6.5CM. The best part, it was running really slow because of the short barrel so at distance I was blind to what the results would having never shot a 6.5CM that slow. This is typical behavior for me to lay several programs out and compare even I know what the dope should be off the top of my head.
I think most out there (programs) are getting great results, and really the differences are so small, it really takes someone pushing the limits to see it. Otherwise minor tweaking is a standard practice and makes the majority of the debate a wash. It's the exact same amount of effort, whether it's 2% or 7% it still requires a bit of knowledge to move the right way. Most use trial and error, even if that means shifting one number, it's still shifting a number to make it work. Nothing wrong with that.
unless you have a big cross section of rifles to compare, Doppler would be the best single source.
And i'm pretty they do have just as much under the hood information as their accuracy is undeniable. I have routinely run multiple programs at the same time and found them to be spot on. This is not just my opinion, a lot of highly skilled shooters have done the same.
Same thing with your Kestrel, I immediately took it out, traveled with it and found it to be highly accurate. But I never use just one program, I may shoot based off one, but I reference multiple. I was out yesterday at a practice match that was being set up. I had the new ColdBore on a Windows Phone, your Kestrel and my iPhone using Ballistics. The rifle was new, the scope just mounted and the load was factory Hornady 6.5CM. The best part, it was running really slow because of the short barrel so at distance I was blind to what the results would having never shot a 6.5CM that slow. This is typical behavior for me to lay several programs out and compare even I know what the dope should be off the top of my head.
I think most out there (programs) are getting great results, and really the differences are so small, it really takes someone pushing the limits to see it. Otherwise minor tweaking is a standard practice and makes the majority of the debate a wash. It's the exact same amount of effort, whether it's 2% or 7% it still requires a bit of knowledge to move the right way. Most use trial and error, even if that means shifting one number, it's still shifting a number to make it work. Nothing wrong with that.
The question I have is this: Is custom overkill? G1 works pretty well. G7 works better. Neither was designed with modern long range bullets in mind, or in an era that had current technologies available to it. Given enough data, can we derive another drag function (with yet another set of BC's, unfortunately) that will work better than a G7 without going full-custom on every bullet? Can we reduce the error at ELR to something insignificant without giving up the convenience of a BC/drag function combo? Or is G7 as close as we're going to get? I imagine something like that would look very much like a G7, perhaps with a little tweaking on the low velocity end. But is that tweak conisitant across bullets?
Because as CoryT said not all programs use G7, and not all bullets are available.
Also because by default you can get highly accurate banded G1 .... If it requires absolutely zero extra effort and a program like JBM will give you a proven, morphed curve why would you "not" use that over a single average.
Pretty sure it was just said a banded multi point curve was better when compared to a single number.
That makes perfect sense. Better is better, and free is free. No argument there. I think we can do better, but what's available is what's available.
I want to use Custom Curves and trade them like baseball cards...
A big problem is the confusion exactly like we see here in this thread. The average person reads just a little and doesn't understand it, but takes away, G7 is better... period. They don't know anything about it, just that they read G7 is better, no caveat, no understand what is actually on the street, just a piece of a idea they heard someone say. Then the game of telephone takes over and it all goes wrong.
Next problem is guys who have no clue, who hear, G7 is better, so they pull a bullet from a library and then change the model to G7 because it's said to be better. Problem is, the software gave them a G1 value and they don't know the difference. It's a number, it fits and the software let them change it from G1 to G7. That adds a layer of frustration and another problem. Compound that when guys can't find a G7 number and just use the G1 value because they think the software knows better.
if you had a blind custom curve, and it's number was 1... or something similar, and you allowed them to trade these curves so it was plug and play, you'd have a much better understand and you can easily say, "this G7 custom curve is better"... Install the curve, pull up the bullet, it loads the custom curve, and you are done. If you are really smart you build in a utility to build custom curves but you make it so you can trade it.
I am playing with Coldbore for the Windows Phone. It uses Windows 8 and what I did, (cause I am committed to this shit) is buy a MS Surface (i'm an Apple guys, makes me puke) and I bought a refurbished Window 8 Phone with no SIM card. I use the Wifi for both and now, Coldbore works on the Surface, on the Windows Phone and On a PDA all for the one license and price. (The Surface runs my Kestrel Software too) What this program does now is, it creates a folder (all by itself) in your MS SkyDrive account. The SkyDrive is a cloud service from MS you get a free account with the Surface and I think you can get a free account regardless. This allows me to work on my desktop and then move my data from the Surface or Phone to the Cloud, and it can be accessed back and forth. I built a Track in my Phone, uploaded to the Cloud, pulled down to my Surface.
This is the future... your data on a cloud that can be moved back and forth.
I really like the Kestrel from Applied Ballistics, I like the fact it is future proof, easy to use, and serves two purposes. Image if you can load a custom curve in from a file or utility and then just bluetooth it over. Johnny new shooter with no clue get a Kestrel or wants to get something... a Ballistic Program. You tell him here is the best program, and by the way here is a line to a custom curve install it and you'll be all set.
You can exchange, trade, all for a tiny 50k file.
Here i am in the field, I can build a profile, true it up and fine tune it on my Windows Phone. Get home connect to Wifi and upload that new profile to the Cloud, and boom it's on my Surface. Or vice versa... Spend the night, nothing on TV, build a profile, upload to phone go out and shoot it the next day.
A big problem is the confusion exactly like we see here in this thread. The average person reads just a little and doesn't understand it, but takes away, G7 is better... period. They don't know anything about it, just that they read G7 is better, no caveat, no understand what is actually on the street, just a piece of a idea they heard someone say. Then the game of telephone takes over and it all goes wrong.
Next problem is guys who have no clue, who hear, G7 is better, so they pull a bullet from a library and then change the model to G7 because it's said to be better. Problem is, the software gave them a G1 value and they don't know the difference. It's a number, it fits and the software let them change it from G1 to G7. That adds a layer of frustration and another problem. Compound that when guys can't find a G7 number and just use the G1 value because they think the software knows better.
if you had a blind custom curve, and it's number was 1... or something similar, and you allowed them to trade these curves so it was plug and play, you'd have a much better understand and you can easily say, "this G7 custom curve is better"... Install the curve, pull up the bullet, it loads the custom curve, and you are done. If you are really smart you build in a utility to build custom curves but you make it so you can trade it.
I am playing with Coldbore for the Windows Phone. It uses Windows 8 and what I did, (cause I am committed to this shit) is buy a MS Surface (i'm an Apple guys, makes me puke) and I bought a refurbished Window 8 Phone with no SIM card. I use the Wifi for both and now, Coldbore works on the Surface, on the Windows Phone and On a PDA all for the one license and price. (The Surface runs my Kestrel Software too) What this program does now is, it creates a folder (all by itself) in your MS SkyDrive account. The SkyDrive is a cloud service from MS you get a free account with the Surface and I think you can get a free account regardless. This allows me to work on my desktop and then move my data from the Surface or Phone to the Cloud, and it can be accessed back and forth. I built a Track in my Phone, uploaded to the Cloud, pulled down to my Surface.
This is the future... your data on a cloud that can be moved back and forth.
I really like the Kestrel from Applied Ballistics, I like the fact it is future proof, easy to use, and serves two purposes. Image if you can load a custom curve in from a file or utility and then just bluetooth it over. Johnny new shooter with no clue get a Kestrel or wants to get something... a Ballistic Program. You tell him here is the best program, and by the way here is a line to a custom curve install it and you'll be all set.
You can exchange, trade, all for a tiny 50k file.
Here i am in the field, I can build a profile, true it up and fine tune it on my Windows Phone. Get home connect to Wifi and upload that new profile to the Cloud, and boom it's on my Surface. Or vice versa... Spend the night, nothing on TV, build a profile, upload to phone go out and shoot it the next day.
Here is a screen shot of the SkyDrive
I have thought about this, and it's a fantastic idea. As you've seen, there are some details to work out. What it really calls for in my opinion, is a central online store of drag functions in a standard format. Then, any device with a ballistic calculator who could read that format would be able to pull function from that central source and use them. Each program would be able to solve or tweak those functions as the author sees fit. The first (of many) hitches is that it really belongs on the web, so people would have to plan ahead when shooting off the grid and download the functions they need.
The second, and bigger problem, is defining the standard function format. It's not technically challenging, but getting anyone to adopt the standard is tough. Especially when you have only a small number of people who care about this level of detail. Eventually, you could get past that -like you said, baseball cards - no engineering required. But many a standard has died due to lack of an initial push.
I've even begun playing around with the creation of an online database for this sort of thing. Nothing commercial or even meant to be used by anyone but me, but basically, the system I just described - where drag profiles can be created, organized and downloaded. Just organizing this stuff for a single app can be beneficial, but why stop there? Open it up to the world. If I had the time, I'd probably have this done by now, but as of now, it's a hobby.
You are a better man than me.
Last edited:
even just a text page that can be referenced would be better than nothing that explained what people were looking for:
308
175gr SMK
Advertised G1 BC - .505
Adjusted G1 BC - .496
Litz Adjusted G1 BC - .475
Litz G7 BC - .243
Banded G1 BC Values
.505 - 2800fps to 5000fps
.496 - 1800fps to 2800fps
.485 - 0 to 1800fps
Even a library of this type of data would be great. I know a lot of it is in Bryan's Books, but an online resource with all it like this would be beneficial.
308
175gr SMK
Advertised G1 BC - .505
Adjusted G1 BC - .496
Litz Adjusted G1 BC - .475
Litz G7 BC - .243
Banded G1 BC Values
.505 - 2800fps to 5000fps
.496 - 1800fps to 2800fps
.485 - 0 to 1800fps
Even a library of this type of data would be great. I know a lot of it is in Bryan's Books, but an online resource with all it like this would be beneficial.
That much is half built. I can't say when it will be done. The data entry alone is a bitch. The basic idea is to have a catalog of bullets, each of which could have several "drag profiles" associated with it. For example, under ".30 Cal Sierra MatchKing" you might have a profile called "G1 - Sierra Loading Manual 4th Edition", or "G7 - Litz 2nd Edition" (for example - I wouldn't publish Litz's data without permission - it took a lot of time and money to gather). Pushed further, you could also have "Custom Drag Function - Lowlight 11/14/13". The details could be made visible, but the important part is they don't have to be. If word gets out that "Custom Drag Function - Lowlight 11/14/13" is the bees knees for the 168 SMK, then people don't need to know or care if it's a G7, a G1, or some randomly strung together string of numbers. They just download it and use it. Enthusiasts can tweak and improve. Others can just use and enjoy.
Then any compatible program can download the profile and the user selects it for calculation. To make custom profiles, you'd need an interface for that. Considering how much work it is to make a dead nuts custom function, it seems like it would be good to be able to share them.
That's the gist, at least. It's a work in progress.
A while back, the light went on and I decided the data is much more important than the solver, and yet almost nobody is packaging the data in an easily consumable form. Bryan is creating it, which is even harder, but he's really the only one pushing that knowledge in a widely available format.
Then the internet forum question is not "G1 or G7", but which drag profile? Then we can argue over that.
Then any compatible program can download the profile and the user selects it for calculation. To make custom profiles, you'd need an interface for that. Considering how much work it is to make a dead nuts custom function, it seems like it would be good to be able to share them.
That's the gist, at least. It's a work in progress.
A while back, the light went on and I decided the data is much more important than the solver, and yet almost nobody is packaging the data in an easily consumable form. Bryan is creating it, which is even harder, but he's really the only one pushing that knowledge in a widely available format.
Then the internet forum question is not "G1 or G7", but which drag profile? Then we can argue over that.
BINGO!
The solver is a blank slate without data.
What's more (to the point of cloud storage of custom drag models) the data has to be compatible with the software. Publishing a library of custom drag models only works when everyone's using the same solver. You couldn't expect good results if Frank puts up the 'Lowlight 168SMK 11/18/2013' curve generated using FFS, and someone pulls that down for use in an Applied Ballistics solver or vise versa. The solver and data have to be compatible, which many aren't.
The custom drag models that I've developed and published for 100's of bullets are compatible with all AB solvers including AB Mobile, the A1st Whiz Wheel, AB Kestrel, and all future tools (many in the works). Testing is ongoing to develop drag models for more bullets. Effects of riflings, stability and bullet lot variations are also being studied and some ideas are forming as to how those things can be modeled thru the use of custom curves. The exciting thing about custom drag models is that they can be built to reflect any cause-effect relationship which is quantifiable and repeatable. Rather than load the '175SMK' custom drag model, why not pull down the '175SMK lot#159304 for a 1:10" 5R', developed in the AB lab specifically for use in AB solvers. The idea is good and the tools are capable, but as you stated above, the key is actually having good DATA! This takes a lot of work, which is why my ballistics lab is continually testing not just new bullets, but effects which cause ordinary bullets to fly differently. I'm up to 11 .308 Win barrels now in various configurations and there are minor differences in how bullets fly from them. Nothing you'd notice over most of supersonic range, but could affect your hitting targets as the bullet slows thru transonic which is where accurate custom drag models make a difference.
Well then it sounds like your'e well on the way. Sounds great. Have you given any thought to opening up the standard? Since it's your business, that complicates things, but its worth thinking about.
I like the simplicity of the AB Solver. Many comment on the complexity of Colbore or FFS when it comes to setting them up and using the program. The Windows Phone with Coldbore is actually much easier than the desktop, especially if you are knowledgable on using an App. It's hard to get people started using the desktop version. It's more for Finnegan's to play with, than a casual user. The phone is closer to what you see in any other App, with a bit more horsepower. It has the juice the iPhone stuff lacks.
If the AB Solver maintained the ease, and allowed the user the ability to load in tailored or standard data like described above it would be a huge win. The single screen, simple drop downs, and the ability to talk to the Kestrel & Android is a big plus for both the novice and experienced shooter. There would be no reason to consider many of the other options on the market. If you can go the simple route, drag and drop, and run, or go the more complex route of building your own curve you satisfy everyone.
Sure I have traded data via FFS with Cory, updated the software together. You can say, "Hey give me the 338LM load for the HK Range" and you can trade that file. But it only works in FFS and it needs to have a device to trade it with. (Like a thumb drive) It needs two people. The CB1 files will talk to ColdBore, but that is it as far as I know. Not many use it, or trade with either, so the AB stuff is a bit more widespread.
If the AB Solver maintained the ease, and allowed the user the ability to load in tailored or standard data like described above it would be a huge win. The single screen, simple drop downs, and the ability to talk to the Kestrel & Android is a big plus for both the novice and experienced shooter. There would be no reason to consider many of the other options on the market. If you can go the simple route, drag and drop, and run, or go the more complex route of building your own curve you satisfy everyone.
Sure I have traded data via FFS with Cory, updated the software together. You can say, "Hey give me the 338LM load for the HK Range" and you can trade that file. But it only works in FFS and it needs to have a device to trade it with. (Like a thumb drive) It needs two people. The CB1 files will talk to ColdBore, but that is it as far as I know. Not many use it, or trade with either, so the AB stuff is a bit more widespread.
Similar threads
