• 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!

Range Report LoadBase 3.0 Testing

Bearwalk

Private
Minuteman
Sep 18, 2010
62
0
57
Between the Blue & Canadian Lines
Been playing around with LB3 for a few weeks and finally got a chance to put it through the ringer this weekend.

I am fortunate that I have access to a private range with known and exact distances all the way from 100 yds to 850 yds in 50 yd increments. Only problem is it is 4.5 hours away and we usually camp when we go. So, my oldest son (14) and I packed up the truck with more shooting gear than should be hauled on an inter-state highway and disappeared for three and a half days of "man-only" fun.

Before I went, I set-up LB3 to be able to work with the two test rifles, a 338 WM and a LR308, both with known accuracy, muzzle velocities and scopes that track very well. Starting with Litz G7 BC's, I tweaked LB3 ever so slightly to match JBM online results at the atmospheric conditions I thought I might encounter. (75F, 55RH, 29.4SP). When we shoot, it is 92F in a driving rainstorm with 95% RH. Oh well, at least the wind was quiet for the test. For giggles, I turned on SD and Coriolis as well.


How did we do? The first rifle test shot low and increasingly so the farther out we went. Shit. So we re-checked zero and sure enough, I had to come up a couple of clicks (1/4" MOA) to re-zero. We then re-did the test and we were dead-nuts on all the way out to 850 at each increment. And when I say "dead-nuts", I mean it. To the 1/4" click.

And so we went to the heavier hitter hoping our luck would hold and sure enough the 338 was dead on as well at each and every increment. Overall, we were very pleased with LB3 and our testing.

So, I'd like to tell you that the thread title is accurate and this weekend was all about testing ballistics software, but it really was about shooting with my son! He even has a new scope scar to show for his efforts.


 
Re: LoadBase 3.0 Testing

I got it recently. Seems a very complete package. Pretty damn happy with it.
 
Re: LoadBase 3.0 Testing

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bearwalk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Starting with Litz G7 BC's, I tweaked LB3 ever so slightly to match JBM online results at the atmospheric conditions I thought I might encounter.
</div></div>

Bearwalk, I'm a big time user of LB3.0 and personally believe you got the very best ballistic application that can be presently bought.

I respectfully would like to ask you why you would tweak LB3.0 to match another application?

In the following link, Ballistics and Predictions by Gustavo Ruiz, you'll find why I'm asking the question.

LB3.0 is a highly developed derivation of Professor Arthur J. Pejsa's original method with numerous proprietary extensions making it very accurate in the full spectrum of supersonic, transonic and subsonic trajectories.

Read the link where the three methods are compared to data based on measurements taken by Doppler radar. I think you'll like it.

The bottom line is, if anything has to be tweaked and adjusted to match anything else, it would be to LB3.0
wink.gif
 
Re: LoadBase 3.0 Testing

I think LB3 is a fantastic program for the ballistics fiddler .Like other accurate programes shit in shit out -put the correct information into your program or you will not get accurate data and that includes the confirmation of your scopes clicks.
 
Re: LoadBase 3.0 Testing

<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: Bearwalk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Starting with Litz G7 BC's, I tweaked LB3 ever so slightly to match JBM online results at the atmospheric conditions I thought I might encounter.
</div></div>

Bearwalk, I'm a big time user of LB3.0 and personally believe you got the very best ballistic application that can be presently bought.

I respectfully would like to ask you why you would tweak LB3.0 to match another application?

In the following link, Ballistics and Predictions by Gustavo Ruiz, you'll find why I'm asking the question.

LB3.0 is a highly developed derivation of Professor Arthur J. Pejsa's original method with numerous proprietary extensions making it very accurate in the full spectrum of supersonic, transonic and subsonic trajectories.

Read the link where the three methods are compared to data based on measurements taken by Doppler radar. I think you'll like it.

The bottom line is, if anything has to be tweaked and adjusted to match anything else, it would be to LB3.0
wink.gif

</div></div>


Eaglet, couldn't agree more, but since this was my first time out I had not had a chance to experiment with where my ballistics coeff and drag coeff. should be in LB3. Since I have access to several high-end chronos and use them frequently, I have great confidence in my muzzle velocities. As a result, I always [almost :) ] adjust coefficient(s) to match field data no matter the program.

To reduce experimentation in the field this time out, I took Litz's G7 BC data, synthesized it a bit and then averaged it over the velocity ranges applicable to my bullets/loads. This was my starting point. Then, to find where my LB3 DC should be I compared and adjusted results between LB3 and JBM, which I had previously used to match field data.

So, in this instance, JBM was really a proxy to my field data. Sorry, I wasn't clear about that. Having said that, I have immense confidence in JBM having used it extensively and with great results.

The really good news, is once I had LB3 adjusted at one reference point (in the comfort of my own home I might add), it worked beautifully at different ranges and atmospheric conditions. Obviously I haven't tried it in cold conditions, yet, but we did have the gamut of of summer weather this past weekend, from cool and dry to jungle conditions.

FWIW, being an engineer I am a bit of a tinkerer and have used many many ballistics programs. The only ones I can get to match field data dead-on are JBM, Ballistics FTE and now LB3. Of course, FTE now uses the JBM engine, so that should not be a surprise.
 
Re: LoadBase 3.0 Testing

Just curious, how close would LB3 have been if you hadn't made the tweak based on the G7 JBM solution? I think that's the real test of the native LB3, not how it did after being corrected based on another program.

On another subject, you mention having access to 'high quality' chronographs. I'm always interested in such things, can you elaborate on what equipment you're talking about?

Thanks,
-Bryan
 
Re: LoadBase 3.0 Testing

Bryan
We were out a couple of weeks ago and Loadbase was only off by .1 mil at 1590 meters from what I actually used. It surprised me because our issue Atrag software before tweaking (truing drop as they call it) was off by 2 mils. I was going to compare it to yours, but never got around to it and I don't remember the exact environmentals. Range was lased off the side of an LMTV from the target so I am sure of that.
I hear you on the true value of the program being able to make accurate predictions without tweaking. I just have to convince the rest of the guys of that now.
 
Re: LoadBase 3.0 Testing

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bryan Litz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just curious, how close would LB3 have been if you hadn't made the tweak based on the G7 JBM solution? I think that's the real test of the native LB3, not how it did after being corrected based on another program.

On another subject, you mention having access to 'high quality' chronographs. I'm always interested in such things, can you elaborate on what equipment you're talking about?

Thanks,
-Bryan </div></div>

Bryan,

For comparison, here are my inputs on my .308 180g SGK (#2160) running at 2460 fps:

JBM: .238 G7 BC
LB3: .237 G7 BC with a .530 DC. These will both yield results that match my field data pretty closely.

For my .338 250g SGK (#2600) at 2640 fps:

JBM: .270 G7 BC
LB3: .271 G7 BC with a 0.6 DC

Also, I was tweaking LB3 to match JBM only because I had already adjusted my JBM BC to match previous field data - and to save time in the field. I always adjust BC as I consider everything also a "known". Hell, I even keep data on MV vs temp even though I only use Hodgdon Extreme series powders.

As for our chrono setup, maybe I should have added "quantity" instead of just "quality" ...LOL. We normally run two PVM-21's in series with a home-made chrono with IR lighting, though we will sometimes run an Oehler in place on the homemade (we like the accuracy, but it is fairly finicky). We will also use a CED-M2 at the target, if we want down range measurements. When all is running well and the SD's all line up, we feel very good about our MV's even if it takes us a half a day to set up.

After having done it this way for a while, I will never run less than three if I am really serious about knowing MV that day. With chrony's, one is almost always lying :), and the third will tattle on which one it is.
 
Re: LoadBase 3.0 Testing

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bryan Litz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just curious, how close would LB3 have been if you hadn't made the tweak based on the G7 JBM solution? I think that's the real test of the native LB3, not how it did after being corrected based on another program.
Thanks,
-Bryan </div></div>Bryan do you have an opinion from a user perspective on LB3 and FFS in comprison with your own formulas and results?
 
Re: LoadBase 3.0 Testing

I will give that a read a little later Eaglet. I am going to do some testing at 865 yards this weekend after a re-zero using ballistics FTE -Patagonia - Xbal -Pejasa and see what I consistantly hit -it should between 6.3 -6.5 mills but I will report back with conditions altitude and all that important stuff

I like your scripture line also !!