Problem finding range to target

patsat

Norwayviking wrote: »

Thanks

I was looking into getting the pc version as well,have the ballistic fte on the ipod,but you cant print out data,make range cards etc for the ammunition used.
So i heard about the pc version that NF have.

I have Fte on my iPhone aswel, just an idea rather than changing to a different calculator....

Get up the data on the screen of ur iPhone/iPod and then press the lock button ( the button on top!) and the back button ( the one at the bottom of the screen! ) and this should take a screenshot of your phone!

Go into images and there should be a pic of your ballistics graph/data, put that on your pc and print the image!

Norwayviking

patsat wrote: »

I have Fte on my iPhone aswel, just an idea rather than changing to a different calculator....

Get up the data on the screen of ur iPhone/iPod and then press the lock button ( the button on top!) and the back button ( the one at the bottom of the screen! ) and this should take a screenshot of your phone!

Go into images and there should be a pic of your ballistics graph/data, put that on your pc and print the image!

Hey Patsat

Thanks for that.Didnt know you could do that with the FTE.
Much appreciated.:D

patsat

Norwayviking wrote: »

Hey Patsat

Thanks for that.Didnt know you could do that with the FTE.
Much appreciated.:D

It's not a feature of Fte it's a function of the iPhone! No matter what app ur on it just takes a pic of the screen! It can come in very useful!

Comeraghshooter

I was tinkering around with the rangefinder this evening and found that once you go over about 250 meters or so it does not work very well but if you aim for something reflective like a road sign it works fine, so with this in mind i headed for the place where i was shooting the other day.
I drove up to the firing point and hung a Hi-Vis coat over the spare wheel of the jeep so i could aim for it with the rangefinder.
I got up the place where i had the gong target set up and used the rangefinder to aim for the back of the jeep, it came in at 415 meters which i think is about 450 yards.

Happy enough as this is the farthest Ive shot so far and id be confident enough to add another 100 meters or so the next time, also the next time ill bring the camera so you can see what the groups are like.

Thanks to all for the help earlier, i think Dev110 was the closest at 460 yards!

Cass

There is the thing about ballistic calculators. They are not reliable on their own. The box of 55gr V-max accorind to some says 3200fps as MV. Yet to hit the 450 yard mark with 9.5 MOA would show a MV of approx. 3025fps.

Thats why real world testing is better than relying on a calculator.

dev110

Ezridax wrote: »

There is the thing about ballistic calculators. They are not reliable on their own. The box of 55gr V-max accorind to some says 3200fps as MV. Yet to hit the 450 yard mark with 9.5 MOA would show a MV of approx. 3025fps.

Thats why real world testing is better than relying on a calculator.

For a ballistic calculator to work all the figures has to be accurate and as I chrono'd the V-max in my rifle I just kept changing the distance till it equaled the OP click adjustments.

Cass

I'll give you a recent example dev110.

I've another new barrel on the FTR (thank you Fergal White). I got it all set up and was chrono-ing the rounds as i broke in the barrel. Its a 1:13 twist. I used he NF BC to calculate the elevation to 1,000 yards.

I input the following:

• Temp
• Altitude
• Pressure
• Muzzle velocity
• Ballistic Coefficient
• Zero range
• Wind Direction
• Wind Speed
• Cartridge
• Bullet Weight
• Humidity
• Sight Height
• Incline Angle

The result was 31.50 MOA to 1,000 yards. I put on the 33MOA for the safety chart. Left it on when i went out to the range. Fired (with the appropriate wind) and i was 0.5 MOA low. Final adjustment and setting for the entire shoot was 33.50 MOA.

Thats 2 MOA or 20 inches at 1,000 yards more than the BC said. Even though all variables were accurate, and measured it still didn't work out as it should have.

Norwayviking

Ezridax wrote: »

I'll give you a recent example dev110.

I've another new barrel on the FTR (thank you Fergal White). I got it all set up and was chrono-ing the rounds as i broke in the barrel. Its a 1:13 twist. I used he NF BC to calculate the elevation to 1,000 yards.

I input the following:

• Temp
• Altitude
• Pressure
• Muzzle velocity
• Ballistic Coefficient
• Zero range
• Wind Direction
• Wind Speed
• Cartridge
• Bullet Weight
• Humidity
• Sight Height
• Incline Angle

The result was 31.50 MOA to 1,000 yards. I put on the 33MOA for the safety chart. Left it on when i went out to the range. Fired (with the appropriate wind) and i was 0.5 MOA low. Final adjustment and setting for the entire shoot was 33.50 MOA.

Thats 2 MOA or 20 inches at 1,000 yards more than the BC said. Even though all variables were accurate, and measured it still didn't work out as it should have.

I see they have similar problems on the Ballistic FTE.
It shows great deviation if you use G1 instead of G7 drag settings on it.
The G7 seems more accurate on the match bullets.
And it doesnt take much error in the inputs before it flys way of target.:D

poulo6.5

Norwayviking wrote: »

I see they have similar problems on the Ballistic FTE.
It shows great deviation if you use G1 instead of G7 drag settings on it.
The G7 seems more accurate on the match bullets.
And it doesnt take much error in the inputs before it flys way of target.:D

G1 setting is for flat based bullets and G7 is for boat tail or match bullets,

Cass

Don't get me wrong i would sooner have the use of a BC than not. The main thing to understand with these as with all shooting aids is they are just that - an Aid.

The BC will have me in the target within a shot or two. Problem with BCs is simple enough as i see it. The variables that a person enters are fixed. The calculator does not take into account gusting wind, the drop in wind, the mirage on the target, the curling effect a wind can have, but to mention a few.

There is the benefit of using G7 settings as opposed to a G1, but as most bullets fall under the G1 heading this is the preset value for most BCs especially those used for hunting. The version of the NF BC i have does not have the function to change this setting so either way i use what i have.

I agree that match bullets and VLDs would benefit from G7 based BCs, but then sellers of BCs (online or with products) would not have as much success selling them. The higher end and military/L.E. ones have this , i think.

Just my opinion.

Norwayviking

poulo6.5 wrote: »

G1 setting is for flat based bullets and G7 is for boat tail or match bullets,

You probaly mean the G6 or G8:D

• G1 or Ingalls (by far the most popular)
• G2 (Aberdeen J projectile)
• G5 (short 7.5° boat-tail, 6.19 calibers long tangent ogive)
• G6 (flatbase, 6 calibers long secant ogive)
• G7 (long 7.5° boat-tail, 10 calibers tangent ogive, preferred by some manufacturers for very-low-drag bullets[10])
• G8 (flatbase, 10 calibers long secant ogive)
• GL (blunt lead nose)

Norwayviking

Ezridax wrote: »

Don't get me wrong i would sooner have the use of a BC than not. The main thing to understand with these as with all shooting aids is they are just that - an Aid.

The BC will have me in the target within a shot or two. Problem with BCs is simple enough as i see it. The variables that a person enters are fixed. The calculator does not take into account gusting wind, the drop in wind, the mirage on the target, the curling effect a wind can have, but to mention a few.

There is the benefit of using G7 settings as opposed to a G1, but as most bullets fall under the G1 heading this is the preset value for most BCs especially those used for hunting. The version of the NF BC i have does not have the function to change this setting so either way i use what i have.

I agree that match bullets and VLDs would benefit from G7 based BCs, but then sellers of BCs (online or with products) would not have as much success selling them. The higher end and military/L.E. ones have this , i think.

Just my opinion.

Thats true Ezri.And its not always the BC(G1) is correct either.
I believe some of the Lapua Scenars and others are given a higher BC than they actually are.

Cass

I know the Lapua Scenar 155s are given a BC of .505, yet in testing some reckon it to be closer to 0.495 (ish). Hence the reason you have bullet trimmers, and tools like John Whidden's bullet die to perfect the tip of the bullet and give as true a possible ballistic coefficient.

poulo6.5

Norwayviking wrote: »

You probaly mean the G6 or G8:D

• G1 or Ingalls (by far the most popular)
• G2 (Aberdeen J projectile)
• G5 (short 7.5° boat-tail, 6.19 calibers long tangent ogive)
• G6 (flatbase, 6 calibers long secant ogive)
• G7 (long 7.5° boat-tail, 10 calibers tangent ogive, preferred by some manufacturers for very-low-drag bullets[10])
• G8 (flatbase, 10 calibers long secant ogive)
• GL (blunt lead nose)

No i didn't

Norwayviking

poulo6.5 wrote: »

No i didn't

Well G1 covers the lot.
Its the standard reference projectile for all bulletstypes.
And yes its also flatbased with a 2 caliber ogive.
But so is G6 and G8 which would be more useful to use in a ballistics computer.:D