Maybe I'll take a look at "Advanced". I've got "Bullet Flight" and although it is fast and handy it cant do anything that a stock chart and some mental gymnastics cant do. Will the "advanced" take multiple wind inputs?

quote:

Originally posted by Dogleg:
Maybe I'll take a look at "Advanced". I've got "Bullet Flight" and although it is fast and handy it cant do anything that a stock chart and some mental gymnastics cant do. Will the "advanced" take multiple wind inputs?

To see what the advanced wind kit will do, please see the attached video.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHxhIZHUUsA

Well I picked up the ap. If you see an iphone flying through the air, please plot the trajectory. Should be any minute now.

quote:

Originally posted by Dogleg:
Well I picked up the ap. If you see an iphone flying through the air, please plot the trajectory. Should be any minute now.

The wind was really blowing hard yesterday so I thought I would head to the range for some 500 yard wind practice. Adv Bal said my wind drift for a 7 STW was .07 MOA in a 10 mph wind. Yea, right. I knew that was wrong but didn't have time to figure out what I did wrong. This thing just might be too fancy for its own good. My BR2, while it doesn't account for spin drift, Coriolis, or phases of the moon, never shows crap like that.

You know what they say when it comes to computers - garbage in garbage out.

Computers - and their software such as ballistic programs - are just tools and only as good as the tool user.

quote:

Originally posted by Ackley Improved User:
You know what they say when it comes to computers - garbage in garbage out.

Computers - and their soft war such as ballistic programs - are just tools and only as good as the tool user.

I know all about computers- I own a software company that supplies software to a number of Fortune 500 companies.

The point is, the wind feature is overly complicated. By the time you put in different wind slices, the wind has changed. This feature just adds complexity and will cause users to miss - especially if they don't recognize the solution presented is an obvious error.

The wind kit can be simplified and used very quickly to provide a solution assuming a simple constant wind, just like your BR2 or - so far as I know - all other ballistic programs. I'm certain this simple approach may be the best approach in many wind situations. When simplified like this, I've checked the wind kit's solutions to Bryan Litz's Applied Ballistics program's wind solutions, and they give identical results.

Or, if the simple wind approach doesn't doesn't appear to be working, then programing complex wind patterns can be used to provide a solution, which might be better under other conditions...it all depends. But, if you enter garbage in you'll get garbage out.

I agree with your point about practice, practice, practice, and maybe this approach will also work in perfecting the use of the wind kit.

But, if the program offers too many confusing choices for your taste, then don't use it.

Certainly, no law says you have too use it, and in the meantime, you're out only $20.

Your attitude confuses me, since you claim to be computer literate. I would think such a person would be intrigued and challenged by the potential of the advanced wind kit.

AIU:

I see no value in the advanced wind kit because you can't possibly know how fast the wind is blowing between 200 and 400 yards, 400 to 560, 560 to 1000, etc. And even if you did, by the time you enter it, it has changed. Yes, theoretically if you knew this and could enter it instantly, I suppose it becomes useful. But the more complexity in anything, the greater the risk of a mistake - very true with our software BTW and why we offer a service where we run it for you instead of you doing it yourself.

The best thing this kind of tool does is give you a good idea of the "wind envelope" - the least drift condition, the most drift condition, and the most common condition.

I don't think we'll ever be able to completely make a science out of some that has a large art component. That doesn't mean it isn't worth trying.

If I've learned one thing about long range shooting its that if someone thinks they are going to buy a Kestrel, program, chronograph data and the rifle of the day and be an instant 1000 yard first shot killing machine they are several kinds of delusional. Having said that, at powder burn ranges of 500 and down its surprising how sloppy you can get and still be effective.

The ballistic programs are an interesting concept and can do a lot of "what ifs" but for me aren't really practical for day to day use be it for game or long range match shooting.
In order for the programs to be of practical use the bullet would have to be able to recognize all the conditions, wind, temp., pressure, etc., during it's flight to the target. Various military units of modern nature have such projectiles but as far as I know none in shoulder fired weapons, only found in sophisticated artillery rounds. It's very easy for the "human factor" to erase the programs calculations. Please don't misunderstand, I appreciate the knowledge that such programs offer but being of "old school" find them something of a novelty and for me will depend on what I see as wind conditions for the first 1/3 to 1/2 of the bullets flight for corrections. For winds from 6 o'clock or 12 o'clock make very little if any corrections in elevation. Perhaps I will get me one of those programs and you never know, might learn something even at my age.

quote:

Originally posted by Dogleg:
I don't think we'll ever be able to completely make a science out of some that has a large art component. That doesn't mean it isn't worth trying.

If I've learned one thing about long range shooting its that if someone thinks they are going to buy a Kestrel, program, chronograph data and the rifle of the day and be an instant 1000 yard first shot killing machine they are several kinds of delusional. Having said that, at powder burn ranges of 500 and down its surprising how sloppy you can get and still be effective.

Very true Dogleg. In my post above about 500 yard wind practice, I invited two guys to shoot with me. When we got to 500, they were astounded at how far the range seemed to be. I set up with my 7 STW, took one shot, then shot twice with my .308. One guy was shooting with his .308 and not even coming close. I asked if he wanted to shoot my rifle. I showed him my shooting sitting bipod position, explained my wind hash marks, and told him to hold 3 MOA into the wind. He was about 2 inches high. His buddy then shot and hit about 2 inches low. Both were perfect for windage, although I kept calling different wind calls until he shot. None of these guys had ever shot at 500, and it got me to thinking about these long range schools: if the instructor is calling with wind, you can quickly become convinced it is the equipment, when it is really the guy behind the scope.

Also reinforces the idea that a spotter who can read the wind really increases your chances.

Finally, I was out shooting yesterday at 734 and 800 yards. I spent more time trying to read the wind than it would have taken me to get to 500 yard if it had been a hunting situation, at which point the shot would have been a no brainer.

Finally worked-up my load and I went rock hunting out east of town...lots of rocks in my area.

Found some nice flat-faced rocks across a large deep canyon, which looked like they'd make nice bullet marks. They did.

Set-up my spotting scope and used my ranger to find a nice 1000 yd rock with a good flat smooth face.

Got out my Kestrell and measured 2 to 6 mph winds coming down the canyon R to L at my 3:00.

Got out my iphone solved the gravity and spin drift parts, and then assumed that the cross wind would increase to a max of ~8 mph at mid canyon. I set the wind kit for a linear wind set at 8 mph. I ignored coriolis effects, since it would only be ~1.5" correction at my location and azumuth. The program suggested holding into the wind 15.6 inches.

After making the adjustments, I hit ~12 left of my aim point by my estimation through the spotting scope.

Hmm...I figured I under estimated the peak wind velocities mid canyon, and thus, increased my linear wind setting to 12 mph. Then the program suggested 26.3 inches of correction.

Next shot hit dead on...at least it seemed so thru the spotting scope. I think Bryan Litz and JBM have got it right.

quote:

Originally posted by Ackley Improved User:
Finally worked-up my load and I went rock hunting out east of town...lots of rocks in my area.

Found some nice flat-faced rocks across a large deep canyon, which looked like they'd make nice bullet marks. They did.

Set-up my spotting scope and used my ranger to find a nice 1000 yd rock with a good flat smooth face.

Got out my Kestrell and measured 2 to 6 mph winds coming down the canyon R to L at my 3:00.

Got out my iphone solved the gravity and spin drift parts, and then assumed that the cross wind would increase to a max of ~8 mph at mid canyon. I set the wind kit for a linear wind set at 8 mph. I ignored coriolis effects, since it would only be ~1.5" correction at my location and azumuth. The program suggested holding into the wind 15.6 inches.

After making the adjustments, I hit ~12 left of my aim point by my estimation through the spotting scope.

Hmm...I figured I under estimated the peak wind velocities mid canyon, and thus, increased my linear wind setting to 12 mph. Then the program suggested 26.3 inches of correction.

Next shot hit dead on...at least it seemed so thru the spotting scope. I think Bryan Litz and JBM has got it right.

Well, you proved what I have been saying for a long time: the wind drift is ALWAYS more than the anemometer says it is.

Remember your question about the cross canyon shot? I said take a rock shot - assuming that wouldn't scare the deer, you would have nailed him.

I don't doubt ballistic SW is accurate: like I said, we can't know exactly what the wind is doing and therein lies the problem.

The trouble with programs is since you don't have all the information you'll never be sure without the sighters. Once you have the sighters you don't need the program. Theres a bit of a Catch 22 there, but they are better than nothing.

I went hunting for the perfect sighter rocks to shoot, but in the real world of hunting that deer may not present himself with a conveniently located sighter rock to shoot. In my experience, this is usually the case, and you've got to make a good first shot. Having a human sighter for your shooting is not always feasible either.