• 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!

Confused on BC (dif between AB and BallisticArc)

V

Vandy321

Guest
Trying to verify drop on a new load.

Same environments and rifle inputs, but ballisticArc is using a .354 BC for berger 215 hybrids, bergers posts .356 on the box and AB shows a .358 BC

Who to use? To know what's accurate and that I'm not just trueing data off a bad BC

Split the dif and go with what berger states?

Also, is using Density Altitude a better route than Temp/Pressure/Humidity? As I understand it it should give me the same answer either way?
 
Those numbers are accurate for THEM... their system, under their conditions, they are simply an average to give you a starting point.

BCs are fluid, they move and change based on a variety of changes or conditions.

Both will work, how you true that is gonna be by tweaking the MV like the case of AB.

Those numbers are a single average nothing more.

if you have access to all the data, like Baro, temp, etc, you are better off using that, but both will work.
 
Thanks!

Last dumb question, how much does default length effect those numbers? I'm measuring 10 berger 215s at 1.600 (+/- .002) AB has them at 1.589.

Will try to true BC off AB then, seems to have more inputs/user selectable variables than ballisticARC.

I was .2 - .3 mil low today from the default both at 500 and 700 yards.
 
Welcome to the real world

change the MV 50fps and you should be good.

Lenght is only for SD, which will be wrong anyway, I turn it off ... but you can do it how you like, the fraction won't matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vandy321
Welcome to the real world

change the MV 50fps and you should be good.

Lenght is only for SD, which will be wrong anyway, I turn it off ... but you can do it how you like, the fraction won't matter.


not to hi-jack this thread,

Frank could you expand on that SD comment more. why do you say "it's always wrong"? what do you do instead, if anything?

this always puzzled me, and you are right - it never seems right. the number of times i gotten to a stage with a obvious left - right breeze, then added in a tenth or two SD - and still had to hold straight up baffles me.

is turning it off the way to go? within a certain distance?
 
I don't it' s 3x bigger than reality with many of these programs.

I don't use SD at all, I turn it and CE OFF.

When I true my data I am truing it to real work data, that data includes every variable imaginable, in other words, it's in there.

The software you are using is not calculating SD as much as it using a flat rate TOF based offset to insert into the equation.

Remember, software like AB is 3DOF, there is no SD in 3DOF, there is Yaw or Pitch, that is added in 4DOF, and expanded on in 6DOF.

SD according to Jim Boatright is about 1.25% of elevation, so consider to use .1 Mils that means about 10 Mils of elevation to dial on .1 mils . not to mention changes from caliber to caliber, MV to MV, wind direction, etc. All these are a factor.

I don't even consider it at ELR ranges, I focus on the wind drift, as it's a bigger factor. The last time I worked with others and they were using SD based on the software it was a wrong by this amount,

The program estimated .8 Mils of SD, this put the shot on the wrong side of the wind. We had a consistent 6 MPH wind that was known to be correct based on previous shots. When we worked the problem backward, at 2000 METERS, we found the SD was actually .3 Mils which si 1 MOA at 2000m with a 300NM. So this is why I don't use it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Olen_4504
Same environments and rifle inputs, but ballisticArc is using a .354 BC for berger 215 hybrids, bergers posts .356 on the box and AB shows a .358 BC

Who to use? To know what's accurate and that I'm not just trueing data off a bad BC

Berger also regularly updates their data, maybe not with each individual lot or not, but they are pretty frequently not the same as they were the last time you bought them a year ago.
Lot to lot differences, barrel differences, environmental differences. It all matters and getting a good number requires you to shoot it at distance to trim it up.

Like Lowlight said "Those numbers are accurate for THEM... their system, under their conditions, they are simply an average to give you a starting point. "



I like to manually enter all my data exactly, measure the bullet length etc for the manual entry into geoballistics and enter all that bullet and rifle profilce data exactly. Then when you have that all set up and get some good chorno numbers like from a magneato or labradar and make sure it lines up at 5-600. If it does awesome, trim up the BC# at 1k yards to get it to line up. But .004 difference in BC between all of those BCs is pretty small, maybe only a tenth of a mil or so at 1k.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vandy321
Quick follow up...when trying BC, what's the best way to do that...assuming I true it at 700...should that drag curve then hold true for say 400 yards and 1000 yards?

Or is there a way/need to true at multiple different ranges? If I get on at 70p, but am still seeing a .1mil error at another range, would that then be a BC correction?
 
If you have your speed correct then when you alter the BC for targets further out the close range stuff should stay lined up. If you have to change the BC enough to make it not line up still then you probably have an error in your data somewhere else.

Real World
Here is a chart for a known 6.5 creed 140 eld load. I know this is where it hits, this will be what I compare to.
.326 g7 and 2750 fps
300=1.0
600= 3.6
1000=8.3
1569014990113.png



Slow Velocity
This is with 2650 fps entered, 100 fps slower. At 300 yards its calling for .1 more elevation than real world, at 600 its .3 more, at 1000 its .8 different. A pretty good difference.
So we know that it is calling for us to dial in more elevation than necessary at all distances and getting progressively worse.
My first step would be to chrono the rounds to see what they are actually doing so that I can get a good actual known velocity to begin my data collection. If I didnt have a chrono I would then start increasing the velocity in steps that get my 600 yard dope to line up.
300=1.1= .1 off
600= 3.9= .3 off
1000=9.1= .8 off
1569015027800.png




Slow Velocity, Wrong BC
This one has the velocity that same 100 fps slower velocity as right above but I also dropped the BC down from .326 to .310.
300 yards is still only calling for .1 mils more than the real world example, 600 is .4 more and 1000 yards is 1 whole mil off.
So you can see that with the way off BC value in addition to the velocity being low that the 300 yards target is only .1 mils off of real world, the same as the above example with only the velocity wrong. The 600 yards target is .4 off of the real world call but its only .1 worse than the chart with only velocity wrong, the bad BC only contributed to 1/4 of the error in the dope with the velocity comprising the rest of the error. At 1000 yards the dope is a whole mil off but thats only .2 more than the example with only incorrect velocity so I would say that velocity is responsible for 80% of the error here.
300=1.1= .1 off
600= 4.0= .4 off
1000=9.3= 1.0 off
1569015057168.png




Correct Velocity, Wrong BC
So now that we have shown that the velocity is the largest driving force in our trajectories lets correct it.
This chart is for the correct 2750 but with the incorrect BC value still.
At 300 yards the dope required is correct. At 600 the elevation required is correct. At 1000 yards the elevation required is .2 mils off.
So by truing the velocity we took care of the majority of the problem. Now we just need to true up this BC to get it to match at all distances. I would see what my real world elevation requirement is for 1000 yards and then adjust the BC value until I get the correct answer in the calculator.
300=1.0= 0 off
600= 3.6= 0 off
1000=8.5= .2 off
1569015091365.png





And a quick little chart with the calls in the same table
1569015961187.png
 
Last edited:
Quick follow up...when trying BC, what's the best way to do that...assuming I true it at 700...should that drag curve then hold true for say 400 yards and 1000 yards?

Or is there a way/need to true at multiple different ranges? If I get on at 70p, but am still seeing a .1mil error at another range, would that then be a BC correction?

Can you/the gun shoot well enough to discern a .1 discrepancy at 700+ ?

That’s under .5moa.

Not insulting. Serious question and something to keep in mind if you find a lot of data lining up and a few off by .1
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vandy321
Can you/the gun shoot well enough to discern a .1 discrepancy at 700+ ?

That’s under .5moa.

Not insulting. Serious question and something to keep in mind if you find a lot of data lining up and a few off by .1

That was just an example...but if you can true it up 100%, or close to, why not put in the extra effort and true it up to the mil?
 
...or .1 mil, without doing the math that's close to 2-3" or so at 700 yards? Could he the difference between a heart shot or not on a trophy bull...difference between him running a few hundred yards or dropping DRT.
 
...or .1 mil, without doing the math that's close to 2-3" or so at 700 yards? Could he the difference between a heart shot or not on a trophy bull...difference between him running a few hundred yards or dropping DRT.

My point is, most people or guns can’t shoot well enough to be able to get everything at .1 mil across the board. That’s 2.52”. Which means you’d have to be capable of consistently grouping under .5moa at 700yds. Otherwise you won’t know for sure if your door is .1 off or if it’s you/the gun not performing sub moa.

For example, if you’re not consistently shooting sub .5moa the day you are trying and say your 1k lines up, 900 lines up, 4,5, 600 lines up. But your 7 and 800 is off by .1.

If nothing you tweak in your calculator seems to get it right, you/gun is likely the issue there and the .1 isn’t going to matter.

I’m not saying that you shouldn’t get everything trued up exactly perfect. What I’m saying is to know your and the gun’s limitations and don’t drive yourself nuts attempting to true up smaller than that limitation.

If the gun is a .75 moa gun, you won’t be able to consistently true it to .1 mil until you get it shooting .1mil or .3-.4moa or better. And not just at 100yds. You will need to be able to hold .3-.4moa to all distances in which you want to true the data to .1.
 
Ah, rog. Yeah that makes total sense. I think the rifle/load is capable of that. At least to 700 yards, full custom, hand loads I finally got down to an ES of 8....I'm the weakest link as the shooter, 100%.

If I can get it to +/-.1 mil out to 700 or so, I'm content. If I do my part, it's a 1/2 moa rifle at that range.

Sorry, I misunderstood your point. I though you meant maybe just be happy with my data being off .3mil or so. After reading up on some truing, I need to get my zero again and going to mess with the true range zero stuff and verify my load on the chrono again. I did start a new bottle of powder this load, although it is the same lot, but best to check. Hopefully that tightens things up a bit numbers wise and gets me close to start.
 
Spot on with Hornday 4DOF today at 600...

2" high at 800...true with BC/form factor instead of MV at 800?

Will that change my 600?

Hunting rifle...will he happy at 800.
 
Berger also regularly updates their data, maybe not with each individual lot or not, but they are pretty frequently not the same as they were the last time you bought them a year ago.
Lot to lot differences, barrel differences, environmental differences. It all matters and getting a good number requires you to shoot it at distance to trim it up.

Like Lowlight said "Those numbers are accurate for THEM... their system, under their conditions, they are simply an average to give you a starting point. "



I like to manually enter all my data exactly, measure the bullet length etc for the manual entry into geoballistics and enter all that bullet and rifle profilce data exactly. Then when you have that all set up and get some good chorno numbers like from a magneato or labradar and make sure it lines up at 5-600. If it does awesome, trim up the BC# at 1k yards to get it to line up. But .004 difference in BC between all of those BCs is pretty small, maybe only a tenth of a mil or so at 1k.
FWIW, we report BCs from the manufacturer. It's a possible typo on our part, but maybe more likely AB updated. IDK. Feel free to contact us directly anytime with any library requests or concerns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CV_Ag
Spot on with Hornday 4DOF today at 600...

2" high at 800...true with BC/form factor instead of MV at 800?

Will that change my 600?

Hunting rifle...will he happy at 800.

With 4DOF if you trust your MV, adjust axial form factor. In most cases changing axial form factor doesn't produce very big changes within 600. To correct for a 2" difference at 800 you're probably going to move fractions of an inch at 600. If your MV is from a sample size smaller than 10 shots, it may wander within 10-20fps (usually) so don't go changing MV to extremes to get it to work. I'd also suggest turning earth-based effects off (this requires you to input the azimuth to the target for every shot to work properly).

Usually I zero at 100, set my zero angle (ensure enviro data is correct when doing this), then shoot a group on a big piece of steel at 600-800yd, 5 shot minimum, often 10 shots. I borrow a Labradar so I'm getting MV on all of these shots. Then adjust form factor to match impacts on the long steel.

From that point on it's usually set it and forget it. No further action needed. The only thing would be MV changes with temp. The Axial form factor is there to account for gun-to-gun differences in the launching of the bullet. Rifling engraving, muzzle brakes, cans, etc.. all impose different effects onto the bullet that slightly alter the drag profiles. In many cases going from bare muzzle to a suppressor can change it enough to see flight differences --beyond just the obvious POI shift from having a weight attached to/removed from the end of the barrel-- at long range (800+).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vandy321
Here are a couple of fun facts while you think about this:

1) A BC is velocity dependent. Manufacturers can cherry pick this (Some don't like Berger, Lapua, or Sierra) We also do the testing for a number of companies like Berger & Lapua and many others, but picking the right BC can be tough. While our high resolution radar tracks a bullets velocity every couple of feet which can literally provide thousands of data points, check out this abbreviated calculation and look at how the BC changes throughout the flight.

Also, while you look at the data, notice the blip at 949fps. Our data is usually the average of 10 - 15 shots, so this isn't a single bullet anomaly. The transition from Super to Sub occurs over a period from Mach 1.2 to 0.9. Its not just a solid "wall" that you slam through.

Capture1.png


By looking at this, which BC would you choose? Usually a shooter wants one that is most representative of the distances they will be shooting. You can also see how it leveled off in the subsonic.

The important take away here, is that a BC is actually Mach dependent (Velocity & Speed Of Sound(Temp Dependent)) and that it changes a lot during a bullets flight. In this case we have a high of 0.382 and a low of 0.332 G7. For a G7 Bullet. Take a look here and you will see how much the BC varies from the standard models for this bullet throughout its flight:

Capture2.png


This image shows you how consistent the difference is between the bullet and the G7 standard in supersonic, and how consistent the difference is in subsonic. Indicated by how relatively flat the lines are. Relatively being the key word as you can still see the bumps and dips in the variation line. At transonic you can see its varies a lot during that short time through the transition. If the bullet was a perfect fit for a G7 model, that line would be perfectly flat.

Essentially, when you pick a single G# and input it, you are telling the solver that line is "flat" with no variation in that BC over time from the standard. Which just isn't the case. The band-aid for this is stepped BCs. Picking 3, 4, or 5 BCs and inputting that instead. To make up for the non linear difference. But why use a handful and still miss out on the rest of the data, when a solver can actually just use the flight model directly off the radar and get dozens upon dozens of data points. Including high resolution modeling during the transonic shift. (Which is what we do).

The G1 line is just a mess, and you can see why a boat tail bullet should be using a G7 and not a G1 BC when using a BC.

This is why we advocate for the use of a CDM and to only use an Averaged G7 BC for supersonic calculations or when trying to compare two bullets. This bullet is pretty good for consistent variation, and some have far more variation. It isn't a bad thing, it just means it doesn't follow the G7 bullets drag model perfectly.

Hopefully this helps to show you how a BC is velocity dependent, and changes through most of the bullets flight with the biggest variation being in the transition from supersonic to subsonic. Also it hopefully shows why picking the correct form factor (G1 vs G7) is important.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Vandy321
The above graph is quite misleading, because it uses the same scale, which obviously makes for bigger "mess" of G1 vs G7, but using a different scale, based on change percentage (the right way to do this) the overall net difference is much smaller. I'm not saying that G7 does not yield a "flatter" curve, just pointing out how to do a proper comparison.

On the other hand, no need for "dozens and dozens" of data points (marketing BS), because any CD-based curve uses no more than 10 or 12 points. At KO2M a number of guys ran G1 ballistics and still made the top five... G7 is overrated when comparing to G1. Any serious test will clearly show that G1 can produce head-to-head numbers when compared to G7 given the proper data.