Range Report Anyone seen this program?
Re: Anyone seen this program?
I would stick with JBM its tried and true
I would stick with JBM its tried and true
Re: Anyone seen this program?
Kinda my thinking as well, thought I'd ask. Thanks.
Kinda my thinking as well, thought I'd ask. Thanks.
Re: Anyone seen this program?
I have that program. In some ways it's better than JBM, in others it's not. It's kind of hard to rank them, since they each contain features the other program doesn't. Either way, I like it and use it all the time.
I have that program. In some ways it's better than JBM, in others it's not. It's kind of hard to rank them, since they each contain features the other program doesn't. Either way, I like it and use it all the time.
Re: Anyone seen this program?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bill Stoffels</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would stick with JBM its tried and true </div></div>
1+. Has not let me down yet.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bill Stoffels</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would stick with JBM its tried and true </div></div>
1+. Has not let me down yet.
Re: Anyone seen this program?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kombar</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have that program. In some ways it's better than JBM, in others it's not. It's kind of hard to rank them, since they each contain features the other program doesn't. Either way, I like it and use it all the time. </div></div>
Help me understand what’s better about the program? The designer of this program is using old ballistic models that require the use of additional G1 ballistic coefficients at multiple ranges. This is to help massage the longer range results. Unfortunately it almost impossible to predict and/or measure the additional ballistic coefficients required to get these calculations anywhere close to live range data. The designer is also only using one ballistic model to predict the flight of every type of bullet. What he’s trying to say is his program predicts a 45 ACP flat nose bullet using the exact same ballistic model as a VLD bullet. External ballistics aren’t this simple and you can’t use one model for every bullet type…that just doesn’t work.
The two best ballistic programs on the market are JBM which is also free on the web and the RSI Ballistic Lab which can be a bit costly, but worth every penny. Each program uses the same coefficient drag models developed by the US Army at the Aberdeen Proving grounds. I see a lot of neat features in some new ballistic programs that have come out and ones I’d love to have Jim R at RSI Ballistic lab use on his program and same with JBM. I quickly give up on them when I reverse engineer their mathematical equations and find them using simple but very outdated models. I didn’t even have to do that this program as the external ballistic sample showed the multiples BC’s.
I understand the part of having new tools that can help us long range shooting enthusiast but what good are all the new tools if the heart of the program is based on old tired ballistic models that have to massage long range results?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kombar</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have that program. In some ways it's better than JBM, in others it's not. It's kind of hard to rank them, since they each contain features the other program doesn't. Either way, I like it and use it all the time. </div></div>
Help me understand what’s better about the program? The designer of this program is using old ballistic models that require the use of additional G1 ballistic coefficients at multiple ranges. This is to help massage the longer range results. Unfortunately it almost impossible to predict and/or measure the additional ballistic coefficients required to get these calculations anywhere close to live range data. The designer is also only using one ballistic model to predict the flight of every type of bullet. What he’s trying to say is his program predicts a 45 ACP flat nose bullet using the exact same ballistic model as a VLD bullet. External ballistics aren’t this simple and you can’t use one model for every bullet type…that just doesn’t work.
The two best ballistic programs on the market are JBM which is also free on the web and the RSI Ballistic Lab which can be a bit costly, but worth every penny. Each program uses the same coefficient drag models developed by the US Army at the Aberdeen Proving grounds. I see a lot of neat features in some new ballistic programs that have come out and ones I’d love to have Jim R at RSI Ballistic lab use on his program and same with JBM. I quickly give up on them when I reverse engineer their mathematical equations and find them using simple but very outdated models. I didn’t even have to do that this program as the external ballistic sample showed the multiples BC’s.
I understand the part of having new tools that can help us long range shooting enthusiast but what good are all the new tools if the heart of the program is based on old tired ballistic models that have to massage long range results?
Re: Anyone seen this program?
I like JBM's ability to predict, but it's not particularly clean for bringing and storing data for my various rifles and loads. I was hoping this would allow me to do that with keeping the accuracy that JBM is known for.
The excel type basis for this is what had me kind of interested in actually spending a little money to buy it.
I like JBM's ability to predict, but it's not particularly clean for bringing and storing data for my various rifles and loads. I was hoping this would allow me to do that with keeping the accuracy that JBM is known for.
The excel type basis for this is what had me kind of interested in actually spending a little money to buy it.
Re: Anyone seen this program?
The ballistic model may be outdated, yes, but that doesn't mean it won't get you on paper at 1000 just like any other program will. If you're talking about shooting much past that, then by all means use something better. Also, it doesn't require you to use multiple G1 BCs, but you can use up to 6 if you want to. The author did this since Sierra publishes multiple G1 values for their bullets.
A feature I particularly like to have is the ability to enter the exact value your sights adjust in. This is particularly useful to me since I shoot a few match rifles with iron sights, and none of them have the proper sight radius for any specific adjustment value. None of the other programs I've used, including JBM, allow the user to do this, which means I'd have to calculate it myself.
There is also an internal ballistics program which has proved to be pretty accurate, though certainly not as powerful as something like quickload. As far as I've seen, JBM has no internal ballistics capability.
I understand what you're saying though, and agree that the JBM ballistic model is more advanced, and will likely yield more accurate results. On the other hand, I don't really much care what my ballistics programs tell me. They'll get me close enough, and then I'll document the exact adjustments needed to get a hit at a given range in the given conditions.
The ballistic model may be outdated, yes, but that doesn't mean it won't get you on paper at 1000 just like any other program will. If you're talking about shooting much past that, then by all means use something better. Also, it doesn't require you to use multiple G1 BCs, but you can use up to 6 if you want to. The author did this since Sierra publishes multiple G1 values for their bullets.
A feature I particularly like to have is the ability to enter the exact value your sights adjust in. This is particularly useful to me since I shoot a few match rifles with iron sights, and none of them have the proper sight radius for any specific adjustment value. None of the other programs I've used, including JBM, allow the user to do this, which means I'd have to calculate it myself.
There is also an internal ballistics program which has proved to be pretty accurate, though certainly not as powerful as something like quickload. As far as I've seen, JBM has no internal ballistics capability.
I understand what you're saying though, and agree that the JBM ballistic model is more advanced, and will likely yield more accurate results. On the other hand, I don't really much care what my ballistics programs tell me. They'll get me close enough, and then I'll document the exact adjustments needed to get a hit at a given range in the given conditions.
Re: Anyone seen this program?
Thanks for the info. Like anything, it seems like this program fills part of the bill, JBM fills another part of the bill, etc and it's a conglomerate of tools to do the various academics we all seem to get into when we're not able to be sitting on the firing line.
I might give it a whirl.
Thanks for the info. Like anything, it seems like this program fills part of the bill, JBM fills another part of the bill, etc and it's a conglomerate of tools to do the various academics we all seem to get into when we're not able to be sitting on the firing line.
I might give it a whirl.
Similar threads
