Ballistic charts vs. Real World results

[John828]

Can I rant for a minute?

Lots of great advice on different calibers (and even certain martial arts) that will cleanly put down game, but sometimes I feel like ballistic programs and charts hold a little greater say in the opinions of some.

Computed energy, velocity, drop, and drift at various distances have a lot of validity, but the proof is in the pudding. I mean the 7x57 (properly loaded and, hell, even in sup-optimum loadings) has put down almost every species on earth. I'd be willing to wager that the venerable 30.30 has accounted for almost as much venison (and its fair share of elk, black bear and moose) from 1900 to 1954 as the current whizzbangmagnumearpoppers have from 1955- present. Maybe hunting conditions have changed as well as manufacturers accounting and marketing departments. Maybe we'll have heat seeking ammo one day too?

Too bad we couldn't have a campfire evening where the "old folks" told me how it used to be before the internet ballistics age.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

So what is your point? You aren't happy with ballistics charts because they don't tell you what you want to know beyond the data?

 

[Tarvis]

It sounds like you are saying progress is bad, and that more information makes us dumber or less skilled. It also sounds like you have a problem with ammo and rifle manufacturers. Are you complaining about all the new cartridges being offered, or are you spending the time to make an observation that has already been made repeatedly? You could argue that the WSM line is a waste of time, and that the RSAUM is a double waste because we already have the WSM. When it gets down to it, it doesn't harm you or deprive you of any other right, and it costs you nothing. Next you're probably going to say Ackley was a fraud and a hack. Sounds like Jim Zumbo.

I mean the 7x57 (properly loaded and, hell, even in sup-optimum loadings) has put down almost every species on earth.

Hunting elephants has more to do with understanding anatomy than what cartridge you are shooting. African buffalo, on the other hand, require a cartridge quite a bit larger than a 7x57 to be 100% effective every time. Cooper exalted the 460 G&A as being the ultimate buffalo cartridge. It is certainly possible that a cape buffalo has been taken with the 7x57, but it was likely more than 2 shots, and the killing blow likely came from the guide's gun.

Certainly, today is a day of reduced knowledge and skills in comparison to the "old days," but to each his own, never forget that. Let me be me and I'll let you be you.

 

[John828]

It sounds like you are saying progress is bad, and that more information makes us dumber or less skilled.

Nope, I guess, information is okay, but the right application of information is wisdom.

It also sounds like you have a problem with ammo and rifle manufacturers. Are you complaining about all the new cartridges being offered, or are you spending the time to make an observation that has already been made repeatedly? You could argue that the WSM line is a waste of time, and that the RSAUM is a double waste because we already have the WSM.

Agreed, + 1/2

When it gets down to it, it doesn't harm you or deprive you of any other right, and it costs you nothing. Next you're probably going to say Ackley was a fraud and a hack. Sounds like Jim Zumbo.

You are probably right.

Quote:
I mean the 7x57 (properly loaded and, hell, even in sup-optimum loadings) has put down almost every species on earth.

Hunting elephants has more to do with understanding anatomy than what cartridge you are shooting. African buffalo, on the other hand, require a cartridge quite a bit larger than a 7x57 to be 100% effective every time. Cooper exalted the 460 G&A as being the ultimate buffalo cartridge. It is certainly possible that a cape buffalo has been taken with the 7x57, but it was likely more than 2 shots, and the killing blow likely came from the guide's gun.

Agreed, +1/2

Certainly, today is a day of reduced knowledge and skills in comparison to the "old days," but to each his own, never forget that. Let me be me and I'll let you be you.

Yep, delete thread if necessary

 

[elmerfudd]

I've extensively mapped out the trajectories of two rifles I own both on the range at 10 yard intervals and using ballistic software. I've mapped it with other rifles a bit too, but on those two I really sorted things out. Since I don't have any real space to shoot long range where I live, the rifles whose trajectories I'm most concerned about are my rimfires and airguns. With my air rifle I mapped things out to 100 yards using five shot groups and 10 yard intervals, then used a program called Chairgun and I found that the results were so close it was scary. The centers of my 5 shot groups were usually within 1/4" of where the program said they would be. This is fantastic IMO, because I have faith in that program getting things right in the future when I change scopes or change my zero distance.

With my rimfire, (CZ452), I mapped things in the same manner and then tried two different ballistics programs, (don't remember the names now), and I couldn't get the observed results to match the computer results for the life of me. I tweaked the BC, velocity, scope height, etc... and nothing I did made the computer predictions line up with the groups I had shot from the bench. I even checked the yardages with a laser range finder when I returned to the range, but still no luck.

So I've seen a good ballistics program provide good results and I've been disappointed with others. Personally, I think the programs are great, but only if you physically verify that they are accurate first.

 

[stubbicatt]

elmerfudd, which is the good program that you used?

Thanks.

 

[Shawnee]

No real need to feel too bad about your "rant", John.





"Too bad we couldn't have a campfire evening where the "old folks" told me how it used to be before the internet ballistics age."


That would be interesting indeed. You can get a taste of it by reading some of the old time hunting books from the late 19th- early 20th centuries and it is fascinating.

One thing that stands out is something that few modern riflemen seem to be aware of. Though there were rifles around - it was one thing for them to be on sale in Hartford and quite another for the backwoods folks (and that was MOST of people not living on the coasts) to have a rifle. The true mainstay weapon for a heck of a lot of people was the shotgun - birdshot for birds (as in the plentiful Passenger Pigeon) and buckshot and "punkin' balls" for, of course, deer and anything larger that happened to be raiding the garden or the orchard.
A modern-day ballistician may scoff at your bringing up such an idea - that we might learn something from that. But a whale of a lot of modern-day archers, handgunners, and blackpowder fans will rightfully dismiss the ballistician as the Village Idiot.

 

[Art Eatman]

My view is that folks worry too much about things that aren't really all that important. Maybe, repeat, maybe, it comes from fewer folks growing up in the progression of BB gun to .22 to centerfire, with fewer "old folks" around who casually talk about what they've used and how well it worked.

One thing I notice is that folks seem to get excited over just an inch or three in difference in trajectory, or about a couple of hundred feet per second advantage.

To me, ballistics tables are handy when doing comparisons, but they're just part of the overall package. I regularly use the Appendices in the Sierra reloader's handbook.

One thing good about all this info: Way Back When, you had to figure it out all on your own. Now, it doesn't take but a moment to figure out what works for what purpose.

 

[Sinixstar]

I think part of it too is that the technology, and methodology of hunting has changed a lot over the years. Back "in the day" - I bet a lot less people had access to high power scopes and the precision equipment we take for granted today.
I remember when I was younger, i wanted a scope for my muzzleloader. My dad's answer to that was - if you can't make a shot inside 100 yards with open sights, you're not gonna make it with a scope either - so no.
I think there was just a different mentality to how things (especially hunting) were approached. The technology was developed, and marketed very well. There's some good that's come from that, but there's some bad as well.

 

[elmerfudd]

elmerfudd, which is the good program that you used?

That program is called Chairgun and last I checked it was available for free on the honor system or something like that. You're able to download it and use it, but it will keep asking you for money each time and I believe there are additional features that kick in if you send the cash. If you actually buy it it will compute your holdover in mildots and some other stuff.

The big downside of it is that it's tailored to airguns. It gives you the weight and BC of just about every pellet out there, but it won't let you go outside it's parameters. For what it does, it's very good, but the data for a .22 LR was beyond it's maximum values.

 

[RP88]

A .223 hits with 1300 ft-lbs at about 1000m/s with 62 gr out to 400 meters. A 7.62x39 hits with about 1600 ft-lbs will going a bit less than 800m/s and weighing 123 gr will going out to about 280 meters.

Seems like one is better than the other until you ask someone which one is more effective, then you'll start an argument that will last 40 years.

numbers don't mean everything.

 

[EShell]

IMHO, given sufficient power to work at all, when it comes to hunting, bullet placement is 90% of it, and the ability of the bullet to expand and reach the vitals is the rest of it.

Far too many people DO get caught up in the minutia of a few hundred feet per second or a few foot pounds of energy. Except the "mine is bigger" crowd, I see this as a non-productive combination of marketing hype and inexperience.

I think we've all seen the newer people to the sport place too much emphasis on bullet performance, trajectory and raw power, while the more seasoned folks know that all we really need to do is get close enough to plunk 'em in the ribs with something that will open up a little and go through, and the job is done.

The same inexperienced hunters will shoot a game animal poorly, and immediately blame the cartridge and/go for more power, as if shooting it in the ass with an UltraMag would have been a better option.

Where the ballistics programs really DO shine is more in long range target shooting, where they give us a starting point for compensating drop and drift problems. Only a starting point, because each rifle and environment will vary, and these variations will affect our exact results.

 

[Plank Road Farm]

John828 Can I rant for a minute?

You certainly may!

 

[jbech123]

You could argue that the WSM line is a waste of time, and that the RSAUM is a double waste because we already have the WSM.

The WSM kinda brought something to the table, but esp. in the 30 cal realm, the RSAUM and now Ruger's RCM are at a minimum redundant.

 

[jbech123]

Too bad we couldn't have a campfire evening where the "old folks" told me how it used to be before the internet ballistics age.

Certainly, the old folks have much to contribute. There are many people these days that think poor marksmanship and lack of hunting skill can be fixed with a 300 ultrmag. That said, the good old days had rifles that were inferior performance wise to those of today.

 

[RedLion]

I don't have a problem with it, since everyone has a right to do what they enjoy. If people like going online and arguing about 50 fps or 2 in drop, cool, if you don't then don't do it.

I'm sure you could make a similar argument about people watching new movies that have to be more realistic or better quality, when someone could say we should be reading the book instead.

 

[d2wing]

Target shooting and hunting are 2 different things.

 

[John828]

Okay, rant's over.

I can mellow out since I realized I was just being a little judgmental.

All I can say is superior ballistics (not ballistics knowledge in general,) is less than 1% of the equation. Since the mighty 22 lr can drop a deer with proper shot placement, there is much to said for good hunting skills and little too mention regarding ballistics.

(My attorney said I needed to mention that I am not advocating any .22 caliber cartridges for big game hunting. Oh yeah, he also said YMMV.)

 

[elmerfudd]

Target shooting and hunting are 2 different things.

I think the charts and software are far more useful for hunting. If you're target shooting you don't need to really know the ballistics of your gun that well, just enough to get it on paper at a fixed distance with an unlimited number of shots. For hunting on the other hand you have to connect with the first shot and at a distance that's never quite the same. To do that reliably you really need to know the ballistics of the rifle well.

 

[John828]

Guess it depends on what type of target shooting you're doing, but I can understand where you are coming from fudd. Knowing the ballistics of your favorite loading is important as is knowing how to correctly apply those ballistics to make the shot count.

 

[jbech123]

Target shooting and hunting are 2 different things.

So is jogging and boxing, but the first is something you want to do alot of to excel at the second.
Pure 100 yard paper punching can be a bit limiting, but if you can get on a longer range where you can vary the distances, you can make it fairly realistic. Is it perfect no, but if you are creative with your target practice, you can increase you hunting effectiveness considerably.

 

[d2wing]

I was refering to the difference in attitude of handloading match shooters
that take great care with every detail of thier loads, dope the wind, etc and rifles and hunters that are not interested in details, just where the shots group at what range. They wouldn't have any idea what case turning or oal mean, but some shooters love to compare bullets, case prep etc.
I agree that target shooting is very important for hunters. I used to teach both. If fact I consider shot placement very important.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I don't know how most folks use ballistics programs, that is, how they apply them to their shooting. For me, a ballistics program is sort of like bore-sighting, but for longer distances where bore sighting doesn't work so good. It gets me on paper at the stipulated distances, but I usually have some refinements to make to get things perfect.

It is nice to go out and know that once I get my zero at X distance, that if I move back 100, or 200 yards that I will have approximate X drop and can adjust the scope with the proper number of minutes to be about right, much more so that if I didn't it by trial and error

What I have found out is that the ballistics programs work a LOT better when I have chrono'd my particular ammo with a given gun such that I know the true velocity of ammo leaving the barrel. Knowing the true BC helps too as opposed to using general BCs provided by some programs. If I use the velocity stated by the ammo manufacturer or estimate the velocity based on some norm, and/or use the general BC (such as ball, hollowpoint, spitzer, boattail hollowpoint") the results are not as good.

 

[Shawnee]

"It gets me on paper at the stipulated distances, but I usually have some refinements to make to get things perfect."


You hit the nail squarely on the head there, DoubleNaught.


Even with chronographing there is still a lot of enlightenment awaiting the shooter who goes to the trouble of actually shooting at 300yds, 400yds and farther.

 

[elmerfudd]

I like to use ballistics programs to make up a chart of my trajectory which I write on masking tape and attach to the bell of my scopes. I usually try to find the BC online and then chronograph the rifle to figure out the velocity. I'll generally verify the results with groups at a few different ranges and then if the software agrees with the real world I'll use it to fill in the gaps.