• The Shot You’ll Never Forget Giveaway - Enter To Win A Barrel From Rifle Barrel Blanks!

    Tell us about the best or most memorable shot you’ve ever taken. Contest ends June 13th and remember: subscribe for a better chance of winning!

    Join contest Subscribe

Ballistic Programs beyond 1000 - differences?

j-huskey

j-huskey

Jafo / Instigator !
Full Member
Minuteman
Jul 27, 2001
3,896
9,011
AL
none
#1
I have Quick Target and two different Horus chips.

Getting ready for a shoot with 338 Lapua to a mile (and beyond) and with 50BMG to 2400.

There is a significant difference between the two programs past 1200 yards.

Which program do you who shoot these calibers/combos find to be the most accurate? Doesn't have to be QT or Horus..

FWIW:
250 Scenar (.675bc) at 2900, 11 twist barrel. Runs out of gas 1800ish.
300 Sierra (.768bc) at 2825, 10 twist barrel. Runs out of gas 2000ish.
750 Amax (1.050bc) at 2715, DamnifIknow the twist (Armalite AR-50). Still strong at 2500.

Between the programs, there is a 5 MOA difference in the 50 at 2500. There is 2-3 MOA difference in the 338's at 1800/1900.

Anbody used these or better have comments?
 
#2
Re: Ballistic Programs beyond 1000 - differences?

Jh,

My personal preference is the ballistic program from aurora precision. That company is owned by John Paver who is the guy that wrote the program for Cheytac from all the radar data and such.
He has since opened his own company and has newer version of the software.

POC: Manny Rodrigues (Chief Sales& Marketing Officer) [email protected]

Also you will find you get way better results past the 1200 with those Amax if you use the BC of .93 as that is the more real world number. Which puts that round transonic of ballpark 1900 so it really not that strong
smile.gif


Thanks
 
#4
Re: Ballistic Programs beyond 1000 - differences?


I'm betting there is something off in the background of one of the programs. It might be one is set to corrected pressure instead of station pressure.

Go to Lindy's website and print off his PDF file that speaks to inaccuracies in ballistic programs.

arcanamavens.com
 
#5
Re: Ballistic Programs beyond 1000 - differences?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bigwheels</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have FFS, & as long as I input the correct data, its accurate out to 2K. Thats just with my little 300WM.</div></div>

What are the details and specs for above quote?

1. Weapon System specs
2. Optic system specs
3. Ammo specs
4. Env Condition details
5. Target specs

Thanks
 
#6
Re: Ballistic Programs beyond 1000 - differences?

I know Lindy. Spent several days over the last few years in his company. I read the link to refresh the things he has spoken with me many times of.

The input is not off on any of the three programs, I made sure of that, all were inputted the same.

I like QT because it is on the laptop and faster to use and easier to jump back and forth between calibers if I want to change the caliber and/or weather data.

The Horus programs won't do what Lindy says they are supposed to do when you do "Save GL to chip". 95% of the time, they drop the gun data when I switch from one rifle to another. This is a pain in the ass, to have to input the rifle back to the correct data instead of the data that Horus has in the chip when you did "Save Rifle as", then "Save GL to chip" and it failed to do so.
It's such a pain in the ass, I sharpie the information on the side of the rifle or scope so I can see it to re-input it into the palm.

Horus 1&2 are within 1/2 moa of each other. That's not the problem. QuickTarget is way off Horus in the amounts described above. Horus is flatter than QT. I hate to waste bullets from $4.00 to $6.50 per so having the correct data is really nice. This is why I ask, which of the programs, Horus or QT have been the most accurate for you guys.

Some of the other programs you mention (I never heard of), I don't mind buying and trying. Plan is to put them all in said ruggedized laptop to be able to sit on range and try each with a known group of shooters under known conditions. In a training class this is nice to be able to do.

It's nice to be able to switch quickly from a 6.5-142 @ 2950, to a 30-210VLD @ 2900, to a 30-240 Sierra @ 2850, to a 250 Scenar @ 2900, to the 300 Sierra @ 2825, to the 50, to shoot one, while the other one cools off.
Paper sheets (that aren't blown away by the wind) end up with a lot of scribbling on them with the changes and corrections required during shooting, to be taken in later and inputted in the laptop or palm to see how close they were to the programs. This verifies several things for me that helps me the next time I go out.

Bad to be 10 days away from shooting those distances (and the 8 hour one way drive) and now, I don't trust any of the programs I have...
 
#7
Re: Ballistic Programs beyond 1000 - differences?

Montana Rifle Co. BA in a Choate USS.
26" 1in 10" ss
208 A-Max moly @ 2950 fps
NXS 5.5-22 X 56 NP-R1 scope
65*/28.48"hg/45%/wind light, & variable @ ave 2mph from 2:00 (my best recolection)
Target is 14" wide X 20" tall silohette A GPS ranged 2000 yds.
FFS had me needing 96moa from my 100 yd zero. I had to use 86 in the turret, & hold the rest with the NP-R1.
Elevation was right on from the 1st shot. It took me a few to get on with the wind, but was able to hit 3 in a row with my last rnds of the day. OK one was just off the side.
P1010006.jpg
 
#8
Re: Ballistic Programs beyond 1000 - differences?

FFS is a downloadable program that you can try out for (I think )30 days, & will time out if you don't pay for it by then. So you can give it a try, & if you don't like it, just don't pay, & it will close out, & be gone.
 
#9
Re: Ballistic Programs beyond 1000 - differences?

Quick Target and my latest Horus Version 3.2.2 (I think) are within a half minute to 2000 on the 50. They begin to deviate past that, with Horus showing a flatter trajectory to 2500.

On the 338-300, the two are within the half MOA to a mile and begin to deviate past that again, with Horus showing a flatter trajectory to 2000 yards (I call BS, and think the bullet will be sub-sonic before 2000, no matter what the program says - but we will see on March 27th.)
Same with the 300-250 Scenar, except it shows dead just a little past a mile, again, we shall see.

I have to agree with "Later" on several things here and on other people's points made that these programs are based on G1. These programs lose something with G1 where G7 gives better results in the interval right before transonic and afterwards where G1 sucks.
Trying to reload Pejsa today..

Horus 1 will be only used for the calibers who live in the 1000 and below zone.
 
#10
Re: Ballistic Programs beyond 1000 - differences?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jhuskey</div><div class="ubbcode-body">... I have to agree with "Later" on several things here and on other people's points made that these programs are based on G1. These programs lose something with G1 where G7 gives better results in the interval right before transonic and afterwards where G1 sucks.
Trying to reload Pejsa today..

Horus 1 will be only used for the calibers who live in the 1000 and below zone. </div></div>
There is a program that uses G1 and G7 in Windows Mobile and that's LoadBase 3.0
 
#11
Re: Ballistic Programs beyond 1000 - differences?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bigwheels</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Montana Rifle Co. BA in a Choate USS.
26" 1in 10" ss
208 A-Max moly @ 2950 fps
NXS 5.5-22 X 56 NP-R1 scope
65*/28.48"hg/45%/wind light, & variable @ ave 2mph from 2:00 (my best recolection)
Target is 14" wide X 20" tall silohette A GPS ranged 2000 yds.
FFS had me needing 96moa from my 100 yd zero. I had to use 86 in the turret, & hold the rest with the NP-R1.
Elevation was right on from the 1st shot. It took me a few to get on with the wind, but was able to hit 3 in a row with my last rnds of the day. OK one was just off the side.
P1010006.jpg
</div></div>

I cannot believe I am the only one having major issues with this guys story. Look close people !!! Those are VERY HARD and Stable impacts for a .300WM Projo at that distance.

Also How the hell do you hold over that much elevation much less windage and even see the target.

So I will be the asshole and call 100% Unequivocal BULLSHIT!!!
 
#12
Re: Ballistic Programs beyond 1000 - differences?

Bigwheels,

OK so please explain on this link pasted below as to how you "held" over and was able to dial and hold the wind adjustments needed because even your 2MPH wind calls for a 2.7MOA windage. (57.4inches)

Your target is 14" wide so you would be holding off the target for windage yet still be able to hold the elevation so accurately.

1 MOA measurements on the elevation bar and 2 MOA measurements on the windage bar is what the NP-R1 is equipped with.

What was your spin drift hold??? Also do you know the max ord for the shot your referring to? You know what kind of downward impact angle the target would be struck in? So my next question is what was the shooter to target elevation differences

http://nightforceoptics.com/nightforcescopes/RETICLES_OVERVIEW/RETICLES_DETAIL/NP-R1-22x.pdf
 
#13
Re: Ballistic Programs beyond 1000 - differences?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Later</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bigwheels,

OK so please explain on this link pasted below as to how you "held" over and was able to dial and hold the wind adjustments needed because even your 2MPH wind calls for a 2.7MOA windage. (57.4inches)

Your target is 14" wide so you would be holding off the target for windage yet still be able to hold the elevation so accurately.

1 MOA measurements on the elevation bar and 2 MOA measurements on the windage bar is what the NP-R1 is equipped with.

What was your spin drift hold??? Also do you know the max ord for the shot your referring to? You know what kind of downward impact angle the target would be struck in? So my next question is what was the shooter to target elevation differences

http://nightforceoptics.com/nightforcescopes/RETICLES_OVERVIEW/RETICLES_DETAIL/NP-R1-22x.pdf </div></div>

Bigwheels,
YOU just got SERVED!!
Your claims to hold over are BS at shooting 2000 yards.
 
#14
Re: Ballistic Programs beyond 1000 - differences?

Id be curious to know Bigwheels, what your elevation was? Because running the #s through JBM with all of your data, your velocity is either wrong or you are way off in your claims. Playing with every number you have, the only thing i changed that would line up with your 96 MOA to 2K was you would have to be 1700 Ft BELOW sea level, i dont think you are that low in Washington. But ill be the second person to say your claim is a little "inflated" if not pure BS.
 
#17
Re: Ballistic Programs beyond 1000 - differences?

I am also curious to know what elevation, or Density altitude he is using. The numbers are way off.

Yesterday, I went out with a couple Hide members here and shoot at a DA of 3774. I was using my 300 WM, 208 AMAX driving it at 2950 fps. I was shooting 1550 yards and it called for 48.75 MOA as calculated by my Exbal. I ended up using about 51 MOA to get to 1550 yards. Got plenty of hits but the impact points are not as pronounced. Also, at 2000 yards, it would only need about 79 MOA to get there. I shot my 338LM at 1850 yards and got a few hits. Even with the 338LM, at 1850 yards, it started to run out of steam.

So I personally don't think that my 300 WM using the 208 AMAX driving at 2950 fps can even make it to 1850 leave alone at 2000 yards.
 
#19
Re: Ballistic Programs beyond 1000 - differences?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AverageJoe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No you can DesertHK. You just have to aim at the third star to the left of Mars to get there.
smile.gif
</div></div>

LMAO.
 
#20
Re: Ballistic Programs beyond 1000 - differences?

Ok. Here goes.
So you guys are saying that with a NP-R1 ret. I couldn't dial up 86 moa on the turret,(which I stated I did.) & 3moa left windage, & not do the additional holdover of 10moa on the ret.( the 1st. BIG line down from the cross.)

Now, with a std. METRO atmos, & my load 2K yds is computed @ 97.7 moa. with a 2mph wind from 90* inc. spin drift it computes a HOLD of 1.3 moa right. You never asked my sight height either. Which is 2.3". This is being read straight from my FFS program as I type.

The target was about 200 ft lower than the FP. I also stated that the #'s were my best recolection of the conditions @ the time.(which was a while ago now.)
I also never claimed that these were my 1st-3rd rnds fired on the target. I actually fired with no wind hold, & walked my windage over to get hits. But the elevation was computed to be correct.

So again, this is not possible with a NP-R1?

 
#21
Re: Ballistic Programs beyond 1000 - differences?

I had to dig back a bunch of pages to find my posts on the other thread.
Here are the actual #'s for the above hits.
Tamp was 75* (not 65*)
Baro was 28.27 (not 28.45)
Humidity was 50% (not 45%)
Elevation need was 89.5 moa (not 96)
I dialed up 83.5 moa, & held over with the ret. the last 6 moa.
I apologise for the error in memory.

As for the hits on my steel. FFS calculates there is still 380 #/ft. of energy @ 2K yds. More than enough to blow some paint , & take a chip off of mild steel.The DENTS in the target are previous shots @ 700 yds. And they are painted over. Only the 3 marked shots are claimed @ 2K yds.
Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.
 
#22
Re: Ballistic Programs beyond 1000 - differences?

Bigwheels
I am not saying that you didn't hit the target or anything like that bro. All I am saying is either your distance was off, or your velocity is off. My 300 WM, using the same bullet traveling the same velocity only takes about 79 MOA to get to 2K. I don't know what it is going to do at 2K but that's how much it takes to get there. Certainly, I can predict the behavior of the bullet at 1550 yards, meaning I hit something I shot at 1500 yards using the 300 WM. At 2K, my load is well subsonic. Actually it turns subsonic at 1900 yards. So, that's all I am saying. You may want to re-chrono your load again. 96 MOA sounds alot for the 2K trip. Does your NF scope have that many MOA? Answere is yes. If you have the 3.5-15,it has about 110 MOA. If you have the 5.5-22, it should have about 95-100 MOA. So again, I am not questioning your equipment. I am just saying the calculation is a bit off.
 
#23
Re: Ballistic Programs beyond 1000 - differences?

DesertHK. You are correct in that the #'s I provided in my 1st post here were incorect. I was trying to go from memory on conditions from almost a year ago without going back, & checking my data. I only used 89 moa to reach 2K on that day. I have also reached out there a couple other times on much colder days, & needed about 95+/- moa to get there.(I'm not going to the trouble to look it all up.) I simply tried to state that my program was providing accurate dope for my weapon out to 2000 yds. & had a target to prove it.
 
#25
Re: Ballistic Programs beyond 1000 - differences?

Thanks. 2K is definitely pushing the envelope for a 300WM.

Average Joe. You should re-read my original post. You obviously missed something. But I fully admit that my "recollected" #'s were off.(combo of the last time out there shooting in 30* temps, with atmos. from the 1st. time.(Sorry about that.) And if you don't believe that the projectile can do it, I recommend reading some of Montana Marines posts, & call him out as well.
 
#26
Re: Ballistic Programs beyond 1000 - differences?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bigwheels</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Montana Rifle Co. BA in a Choate USS.
26" 1in 10" ss
208 A-Max moly @ 2950 fps
NXS 5.5-22 X 56 NP-R1 scope
65*/28.48"hg/45%/wind light, & variable @ ave 2mph from 2:00 (my best recolection)
Target is 14" wide X 20" tall silohette A GPS ranged 2000 yds.
FFS had me needing 96moa from my 100 yd zero. I had to use 86 in the turret, & hold the rest with the NP-R1.
Elevation was right on from the 1st shot. It took me a few to get on with the wind, but was able to hit 3 in a row with my last rnds of the day. OK one was just off the side.
P1010006.jpg
</div></div>
Just wondering what MOA rail you must have on that rifle?
I run a 5.5-22x56 NXS R1 on my .338 Edge and have shot out past 2200 yards with it but it took quite an effort.
I have a 20MOA rail and run out of elevation adjustment at 61MOA. This I am told is about right for this set up.
To get out to the distance I shot I had to zoom out to 5.5 power and use the 80 MOA that this gave me on the Reticle. Hard to see a target at this distance on 5.5 power!
I dialed in for wind.
Don't see how you could get 86 MOA elevation from that scope without a 50MOA high angle rail.
 
#27
Re: Ballistic Programs beyond 1000 - differences?

I don't know what to tell you. I have a Badger 20 moa base on it. It is possibly more than that on my rifle, as I had to add a couple of shims to the rear to get it squared up properly on my action.(a winchester M70 clone. The front is higher than the rear.) I have come up to 80+ moa on several occasions. I have almost nothing left down.
 
#30
Re: Ballistic Programs beyond 1000 - differences?

I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss Bigwheel's report.

I'm shooting 208s out of my 30-06 at 2720 fps. It makes a mile in 74 moa. Quicktarget calcs retained velocity at 1117 fps/576 ft-lbs. Elevation here is 4500'.

Had it out to an unknown range that required 90 moa. QT suggests that would be about 1950 yards. I was shooting at a small juniper on a dry slope and was able to spot my hits and adjust. Target was only about 1 moa per reticle subtension. I made consistent hits.

I'm not suggesting the 30-06 is a great one-miler, but it can be done. I have no doubt that Bigwheel did made 2K hits with his 300 WinMag.
 
#32
Re: Ballistic Programs beyond 1000 - differences?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MontanaMarine</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BTW, I'm running a MK4 16X on a 45 moa Badger base. Gives me 105 moa useable 'up'. </div></div>

That 45 MOA base makes it all possible and is an important bit of equipment.

There are three important gear related things that are needed for a long range shot. Scope turret travel, a good MOA base to help out with extra MOA's of elevation.Then you need a bullet that will shoot flat enough to remain within the adjustment range of your equipment and remain stable to the desired distance.
Then you need good software to determine the drop required and that is what the original poster was asking about.
I use Exbal and compare it to JBM. I shoot only 10 minutes from home and can compare with real time data.
With the right inputs they are both good. Getting the right inputs is not always as easy as you think.
 
#33
Re: Ballistic Programs beyond 1000 - differences?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bigwheels</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This has been a nice diversion from the OP's question.
I have given my information. </div></div>

Will you either post a link to FFS or send me a PM with the information?

Eaglet, will you post a link to Loadbase 3.0 or send me a PM with the information?

FWIW to the rest of you, we now have compared Quick Target, Horus 3.2.2, Pejsa (it reloaded finally), JBM, and Berger (Litz)(on the 250 Scenar).

Quick Target, Pejsa, and Berger (Litz) are damn close to identical. JBM seriously deviates past 1000 (like 8 minutes flatter at 2500 on the 50 - No, I don't believe it at all) and Horus, well you read it before.

On the base and come-up comments here:
50 has a 15 MOA base AND a Larue 30 MOA mount, I have 91 MOA up in the NXS.
338-300 has a custom cut base that gives me 78 MOA come-up in the NXS. This NXS has less come-up than the one on the 50 and they are the same model scope.
338-250 has a 30' Badger base and 70 MOA up on a Premiere reticle Leupold 6.5-20.
300-210 has a custom cut base and 83 MOA up in the same version NXS the other two are.
All these come-ups are measured on a 100 yard come-up chart where each rifle has been shot.

For them that want to know, the scopes at the upper end of the travel have next to no windage at all before the reticle hits and starts to get pushed back down and sideways if you force it (bad choice-broken erectors), so mil holds on wind are a requirement and I already know, that makes this even harder to do.

Four days to go, not looking forward to 8 hours driving up, and I'm already tired (loading ammo at night after work). 50 is up, 338's are up, and now we load 300-210's.
Yesterday at Ray's the weather report said it was raining with snow. LA (Lower Alabama) boy does not like this thought, woman wants to know where the heated shopping malls are. Problems Problems..

Will report results after the shoot on which program was closest to on.

Wind at home today 5-10 MPH. Wind at Ray's today where we will shoot 20-30 MPH. Shit...
 
#34
Re: Ballistic Programs beyond 1000 - differences?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jhuskey</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bigwheels</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This has been a nice diversion from the OP's question.
I have given my information. </div></div>

<span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">Will you either post a link to FFS or send me a PM with the information?</span></span>
</div></div>

Here it is:

http://www.precisionworkbench.com/
 
#35
Re: Ballistic Programs beyond 1000 - differences?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MontanaMarine</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss Bigwheel's report.

</div></div>

I think one of the biggest reasons BW got some of the replies he did is because from the data he listed there was NO way he made hits
smile.gif


He has since revised the environmental conditions AND the scope adjustments to match
smile.gif
 
#36
Re: Ballistic Programs beyond 1000 - differences?

FWIW, I did the vetting on FFS solutions on the .338 and .50 for Ashbury International prior to them becoming the exclusive distributor of the military version Delta V FFS.

The software solution is accurate to 2500 meters, +/- .1 mil, so long as the proper calibration steps have been done.

FFS is unique in it's capabilities, the ability to tailor the drag curve via the deceleration constant (DK) and the delivery of an actual turret solution via proper scope calibration for actual travel. For a working military sniper, it is the most feature rich package available bar none. Now, if you don't need all those features, that may not be an issue.

Realize that ALL software will require some kind of adjustment to match the reality of your gun/ammo/scope combination to deliver an accurate solution. I personally believe that FFS does this via a much cleaner and precise method than any other package available. I've compared my generated solutions to not only actual field shooting, but Doppler radar plots from Lapua and the results are exact within the adjustment capability of the telescope.

Certainly other software can be tuned to match the actual downrange results, but I've found that guessing at multiple BC's, tweaking velocity, scope height, etc to be both time consuming and inexact over a wide range of conditions.

I'll be conducting a webcast on the operation of FFS in the very near future for Gunsite's ELR class clients. I'll post that here so that other's may observe, though I'll be limiting direct Q&A to the class participants. in the meantime, should anyone have specific questions, feel free to PM or email me directly.
 
#37
Re: Ballistic Programs beyond 1000 - differences?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Certainly other software can be tuned to match the actual downrange results, but I've found that guessing at multiple BC's, tweaking velocity, scope height, etc to be both time consuming and inexact over a wide range of conditions. </div></div>

AND besides time consuming and inexact, a HUGE pain in the ass, with less shooting time while cursing the program and trying to adjust it. I hate that shit...

Thank you Cory for the information.
 
#38
Re: Ballistic Programs beyond 1000 - differences?

I suspect that the most neglected tool for achieving accuracy at long ranges is knowing the variation of muzzle velocity with temperature.

That requires shooting over a chronograph at different temperatures.

It doesn't matter whether you're changing that parameter automatically in the program, as FFS allows you to do, or manually, but it needs to be changed as the temperature changes.
 
#39
Re: Ballistic Programs beyond 1000 - differences?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jhuskey</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bigwheels</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This has been a nice diversion from the OP's question.
I have given my information. </div></div>

Eaglet, will you post a link to Loadbase 3.0 or send me a PM with the information?</div></div>
LB3.0 at Patagonia Ballistics

jhuskey, you might want to consider retesting JBM and Berger(Litz) as you called it because both applications use
the same engine called "Point Mass". There may be very small rounding differences due to numbers manipulation inside
the program but over all they should be extremely close. I believe that JBM is definitely way more accurate than the results
you obtained.
 
#40
Re: Ballistic Programs beyond 1000 - differences?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I suspect that the most neglected tool for achieving accuracy at long ranges is knowing the variation of muzzle velocity with temperature.

That requires shooting over a chronograph at different temperatures.

It doesn't matter whether you're changing that parameter automatically in the program, as FFS allows you to do, or manually, but it needs to be changed as the temperature changes.
</div></div>

Lindy,

Is that both barrel temperature and ambient temperature?
 
#43
Re: Ballistic Programs beyond 1000 - differences?

I was plesantly supprised as well. I will say that when I fired them I wasn't expecting to make hits at that range. But you never know 'till you try.
 
#44
Re: Ballistic Programs beyond 1000 - differences?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Eaglet</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jhuskey</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bigwheels</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This has been a nice diversion from the OP's question.
I have given my information. </div></div>

Eaglet, will you post a link to Loadbase 3.0 or send me a PM with the information?</div></div>
LB3.0 at Patagonia Ballistics

jhuskey, you might want to consider retesting JBM and Berger(Litz) as you called it because both applications use
the same engine called "Point Mass". There may be very small rounding differences due to numbers manipulation inside
the program but over all they should be extremely close. I believe that JBM is definitely way more accurate than the results
you obtained.
</div></div>

I'm really glad you sent me in this direction, there is a really nice guy at Patagonia, Brother Gustavo.. I had not spoken with him in a couple of years and I'm really glad to have done so today.
LB3.0 (next to own) and Pejsa are oh so close. Horus isn't far off of them. I sent my spread sheet to Gus and there may be something wrong with the JBM palm we used here. It is not close at all.

I do feel better going up with the data I have and the sheets Gus sent. If I miss, its going to be all on me.

Again, thank you Eaglet, Sir.
 
#45
Re: Ballistic Programs beyond 1000 - differences?

The best way to check these programs etc, out is by actually shooting the rifle at long range.
I shoot between dawn and till just after sun rise on days when there is no wind. This is when the atmospheric conditions are most stable. At this time of day I get about 45 minutes of perfect shooting conditions, more if it is cloudy. I always set up my targets the night before to save time in the morning.

I then use an anchor point to hang my results on. This is usually a single target set up at about 1000 yards.

With my load sight checked at 100 yards, I shoot the 1000 yard target and another target placed anywhere out between 1200 and 1600 yards at precicely measured distances.
I take atmospheric readings in the morning at each target as I drive out to the shooting location and again when I am finished as I pick up the targets.
With the information that this type of shooting gives, you can play about with your software and get a very good idea of what is going on.
This is great practice and gives me confidence in my shooting shooting system.
 
#46
Re: Ballistic Programs beyond 1000 - differences?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jhuskey</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Eaglet</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jhuskey</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bigwheels</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This has been a nice diversion from the OP's question.
I have given my information. </div></div>

Eaglet, will you post a link to Loadbase 3.0 or send me a PM with the information?</div></div>
LB3.0 at Patagonia Ballistics

jhuskey, you might want to consider retesting JBM and Berger(Litz) as you called it because both applications use
the same engine called "Point Mass". There may be very small rounding differences due to numbers manipulation inside
the program but over all they should be extremely close. I believe that JBM is definitely way more accurate than the results
you obtained.
</div></div>

I'm really glad you sent me in this direction, there is a really nice guy at Patagonia, Brother Gustavo.. I had not spoken with him in a couple of years and I'm really glad to have done so today.
LB3.0 (next to own) and Pejsa are oh so close. Horus isn't far off of them. I sent my spread sheet to Gus and there may be something wrong with the JBM palm we used here. It is not close at all.

I do feel better going up with the data I have and the sheets Gus sent. If I miss, its going to be all on me.

Again, thank you Eaglet, Sir. </div></div>

jhuskey, I'm just glad to have been of any help. My friends don't call me Sir!
I humbly believe that LB3.0 is way up in the top; as I have said before I don't work for Patagonia Ballistics but I enjoy
sharing with others my findings and I have been using it for close to 3 years and I just really enjoy it!
Brother Gustavo is a great guy, he will go out of his way to help anyone and really cares about user inputs.
Thanks for posting and anything I can be good for just let me know.
Good luck!

Regards,

Eaglet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Glassaholic
Rifle Scopes Steiner T6Xi 3-18x56 Review and comparison with NF ATACR 4-16x42, S&B US 3-20x50 and March 4.5-28x52
Replies
139
Views
22K
Denys
Denys
M
Black Hills 5.56mm 50 grain TSX: Accuracy, Velocity and Terminal Ballistics
Replies
6
Views
7K
bulletbluesky
B
Glassaholic
Rifle Scopes Alpha Class Long Range Scope Review - TT, ZCO, Schmidt, March, Vortex
Replies
205
Views
44K
Dutch308
D
T
300 PRC
Replies
145
Views
33K
rustyinbend
rustyinbend
hk dave
Rifle Scopes Tangent Theta 5-25 v Minox 5-25 v Nightforce 7-35 v Schmidt & Bender 5-25 v Vortex 4.5-27
Replies
174
Views
46K
Islas82
Islas82
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts