Range Report Field Firing Solution Delta IV evaluation test.

[one shot ST]

Yesterday we did a test evaluation with an Italian special forces with Nomad, PLRF 10 C and Kestrel BT.
Target from 250 meters to 966 meters, rifle AWP .308 and Ruag ammunition P Target 168 gr.
The ballistic table was perfect…… always dead on.
Italian special forces were enthusiastic and FFS is the ballistic software chosen for their purposes.
In the next future GAC www.armeriacamuna.it technical staff will be very busy to do final tune of long range ballistic solution.
The modified G1 ballistic coefficient of FFS is the way to go, if you do the protocol test in the correct manner the results are pretty fine and doen't need additional work to refine the ballistic table with a field check.
The first part of the day was pretty good the second one with heavy rain, wind and hail due thunderstorm over FFP.
But every thing worked properly.
At present time Field Firing Solution is the best tactical software available for military sniper.

 

[Chiller]

Re: Field Firing Solution Delta IV evaluation test.

you REALLY have all the cool toys.....

 

[desertHK]

Re: Field Firing Solution Delta IV evaluation test.

Yes love my Delta IV. It's very much right on.

 

[Graham]

Re: Field Firing Solution Delta IV evaluation test.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: davide</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yesterday we did a test evaluation with an Italian special forces with Nomad, PLRF 10 C and Kestrel BT. Target from 250 meters to 966 meters, rifle AWP .308 and Ruag ammunition P Target 168 gr. The ballistic table was perfect…… always dead on...</div></div>In my experience, up to 1000 yards there's not much tuning required. However, as the bullet approaches 90% of its supersonic range things get interesting: I usually re-calibrate the software at a distance where the velocity is between 1400 and 1600fps. Doing this very important step doesn't usually affect the trajectory output much at under 1000 yards, which, in police work, we call "a clue".

 

[goober]

Re: Field Firing Solution Delta IV evaluation test.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: davide</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yesterday we did a test evaluation with an Italian special forces with Nomad, PLRF 10 C and Kestrel BT. Target from 250 meters to 966 meters, rifle AWP .308 and Ruag ammunition P Target 168 gr. The ballistic table was perfect…… always dead on...</div></div>In my experience, up to 1000 yards there's not much tuning required. However, as the bullet approaches 90% of its supersonic range things get interesting: I usually re-calibrate the software at a distance where the velocity is between 1400 and 1600fps. Doing this very important step doesn't usually affect the trajectory output much at under 1000 yards, which, in police work, we call "a clue".

</div></div>

Graham, I take it you adgust the program from real world data shot at the distances where the bullet is at 1400-1600fps .Do you then adgust also for the transsonic flight ?
Under one thousand yards I find my BALLISTIC FTE given the correct info to be 1st class -$15 . I dont really know anything about FFS other than some of the guys here rave about it but it appears that it needs just as much adjustment as all other programs -other than the obvious input capabilities what are the major advantages with this programme?

 

[armymedic.2]

Re: Field Firing Solution Delta IV evaluation test.

graham please expand on your thoughts there...

my jbm is spot on till about 875 yards (the fps you are talking ahout)

Then it all goes to hell in a hand basket for elevation projections vs real world dope (reality is dropping hard) out to 1000 and im sure beyond, even though the bullet is still grouping sub moa and nose on.


<span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">not to hijack </span></span></span>just very interested in graham's comment

 

[goober]

Re: Field Firing Solution Delta IV evaluation test.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: armymedic.2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">graham please expand on your thoughts there...

my jbm is spot on till about 875 yards (the fps you are talking ahout)

Then it all goes to hell in a hand basket for elevation projections vs real world dope (reality is dropping hard) out to 1000 and im sure beyond, even though the bullet is still grouping sub moa and nose on.


<span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">not to hijack </span></span></span>just very interested in graham's comment </div></div>

I do wonder if your input solutions are correct if you are finding they are not matching JBM correctly ? What caliber , speed and projectile {g7} data } are you using ?JBM if feed correctly is very accurate out to 1000 yards and I am sure beyond -it is mostly transonic flight where it appears things are harder to compute without real world data .I know zip nada about transonic flight the greatest distances I currently shoot are to 1100 yards to date

 

[Graham]

Re: Field Firing Solution Delta IV evaluation test.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ch'e</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Graham, I take it you adgust the program from real world data shot at the distances where the bullet is at 1400-1600fps .Do you then adgust also for the transsonic flight?</div></div>Yes, I use actual data. No, I don't try to be accurate in the transonic realm. But some bullets are better (meaning more predictable) through the sound barrier than others. And subsonic accuracy is possible.

My first step is to adjust muzzle velocity. But muzzle velocity in the real world is never a fixed value so it can never be used for fine-tuning past a certain point.

Then I modify the BC, but again only slightly, throwing out any large adjustments of over a few percentage points. I do this at or near the maximum supersonic range, based on actual drop.

I guess it depends on whether your program, like Exbal, lets you input multiple BCs at multiple velocities, or whether the program changes the drag curve based on a formula.

All I want is for the software to match what I see. And what I see is not predictable past a certain point at extended ranges, so I have to accept a fairly large margin of error with regard to POI.

If I can get to within a tenth of a Mil I know that I'm on. But that's not always possible at extended ranges.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: armymedic.2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">graham please expand on your thoughts there... my jbm is spot on till about 875 yards (the fps you are talking ahout) Then it all goes to hell in a hand basket for elevation projections vs real world dope (reality is dropping hard) out to 1000 and im sure beyond, even though the bullet is still grouping sub moa and nose on.</div></div>That's because the world begins at 800. Unless you are shooting 168SMK's, in which case the world ends at 800.

BTW, if you are grouping sub MOA at 1000 you're a rock star!

 

[armymedic.2]

Re: Field Firing Solution Delta IV evaluation test.

yeah i know i felt like a rock star!

no really, i said the bullet was still grouping submoa bc i shot a seven shot group that measured eight inches two days ago at 1k. i gave the bullet credit. I also shot a 1.3 inch group at 100, so i'd say im not proclaiming everlasting fame just yet

i am using
g7 bc .24 for 178 amax in .308
altitude 200
2625 fps (estimated from poi up to 850 vs drop charts)
25 degree f


my real drop is 45.25 moa vs their projected 42 moa

yet my poi and their projection match spot on for 100-850 yards.......hence my interest in graham's comment. im wondering what changes so much right there

 

[Lindy]

Re: Field Firing Solution Delta IV evaluation test.

You might find some of the thoughts here useful: Sources of Ballistic Program Inaccuracies

As Graham said, the world begins at 800. I can predict my dope out to 700 under any conditions without a ballistic program - but beyond that is where things get interesting, and little things start to matter a <span style="font-style: italic">lot</span>.

 

[azimutha]

Re: Field Firing Solution Delta IV evaluation test.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: armymedic.2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">im wondering what changes so much right there </div></div>
You're almost certainly going transsonic around 800-850 yards under those conditions. That could have some effect on stability. Consider that a .25 MOA difference @ 1000 yards is .59%.

 

[armymedic.2]

Re: Field Firing Solution Delta IV evaluation test.

lindy, that was very well written, and explains graham's statement to me.


thanks guys, my eyes are opening.........

 

[armymedic.2]

Re: Field Firing Solution Delta IV evaluation test.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: azimutha</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: armymedic.2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">im wondering what changes so much right there </div></div>
Consider that a .25 MOA difference @ 1000 yards is .59%. </div></div>


huh? lol im sorry OP i clearly hijacked it.


that equipment looks awesome!