Vertical Dispersion: Flat spots on the MV ladder test are meaningless

[Beiruty]

@Beiruty ok at this point we all know your argument is flawed. No amount of data and experience to the contrary is going to change your mind.

Ballistic calculators use a static BC and Velocity to come up with a solution. This is only valid for that exact BC and speed. Unfortunately BC is different from bullet to bullet and lot to lot. May not be much but it’s enough to induce very minute error.

As we have shown velocity also changes with unknown variables. Again, the calculators are very good very close approximations.

Applied Ballistics runs around to PRS matches and ELR matches using their high dollar setup (including an advanced dopler radar) to give custom profiles (for their Kestrel Elites) for a shooter’s lot of bullets, powder, primers. It is only good for those items and that gun. Change 1 thing and the results may not be as good.

At the end of the day, you are wrong. WRONG. Your wiz bang hypothesis is flawed.

The fact that you referenced 4DOF is laughable btw. Anyone who relies on Hornady is suspect.

Good day.

FYI, the 4DOF use radar data for the Hornady Bullets, they do not use G1/G7 numbers.
You need to do some more readings online

 

[Tarmacshooter]

FYI, the 4DOF use radar data for the Hornady Bullets, they do not use G1/G7 numbers.
You need to do some more readings online

I don’t give a flip about Hornady. Their products are inferior in competition. Again, suspect.

 

[Beiruty]

What are you asking? I don’t understand your question.

Drop Quizz: Explain why there are flat spots on MV vs powder charges charts

 

[Tarmacshooter]

Barrel harmonics. Shooter input error. Unknown variables in components. That’s it! That’s your mystery! Accept it. Live it, love it!!

What a maroon!

 

[Beiruty]

Barrel harmonics. Shooter input error. Unknown variables in components. That’s it! That’s your mystery! Accept it. Live it, love it!!

What a maroon!

That is not a scientific answer, please try again.

 

[Tarmacshooter]

@Beiruty alright. I’m done with you. Obviously it shows you’ve spent very little time behind a high quality custom gun with top shelf components.

Enjoy your ignorance.

 

[Beiruty]

@Beiruty alright. I’m done with you. Obviously it shows you’ve spent very little time behind a high quality custom gun with top shelf components.

Enjoy your ignorance.

Your argumentum ad hominem attack does not help your standing in the discussion.

 

[LVLAaron]

 

[Tarmacshooter]

@LVLAaron

 

[LVLAaron]

Not until everyone has their nap nap with their favorite binky.

 

[Tarmacshooter]

Any chance y’all can figure this out without the trash talking ?

There’s nothing to figure out. The OP is using junk science to start a troll war.

 

[Tarmacshooter]

@Beiruty btw, there may be some confusion in my part. I’m a part of the group that says the Satterlee ladder method is flawed.

I use a traditional ladder and depth testing to settle on the most tolerant and accurate load for my match ammo.

Peace.

 

[Beiruty]

@Beiruty btw, there may be some confusion in my part. I’m a part of the group that says the Satterlee ladder method is flawed.

I use a traditional ladder and depth testing to settle on the most tolerant and accurate load for my match ammo.

Peace.

This was the intent of my original post.
Welcome to the team!

 

[Tarmacshooter]

This was the intent of my original post.
Welcome to the team!

My mistake, I thought you were poo poo’n on ladder tests in general because we use ladders to find our flat nodes.

 

[CA_Shooter]

This was the intent of my original post.
Welcome to the team!

Wouldn't your observation have the same issues as the Satterlee test?

An observation: It was evident from the start, At long range, the vertical dispersion is at minimum when the adjacent loads are linearly increasing and not on a flat spot.

 

[Beiruty]

Wouldn't your observation have the same issues as the Satterlee test?

An observation: It was evident from the start, At long range, the vertical dispersion is at minimum when the adjacent loads are linearly increasing and not on a flat spot.

My statement, in other words, do not look for a flat spot on the MV vs charge weight and expect to find the minimum vertical dispersion somewhere there.

 

[rwj]

Anyone have access to a CFD (computational fluid dynamics) program to model the flow of high pressure gas thru an orifice? I’m thinking that the fluid (combustion gasses) ”see” the rifle barrel as a choked orifice. When an orifice is fully choked, an increase in upstream pressure will not result in a corresponding increase in flow rate (muzzle velocity).

 

[davidjoe]

Anyone have access to a CFD (computational fluid dynamics) program to model the flow of high pressure gas thru an orifice? I’m thinking that the fluid (combustion gasses) ”see” the rifle barrel as a choked orifice. When an orifice is fully choked, an increase in upstream pressure will not result in a corresponding increase in flow rate (muzzle velocity).

Good thinking, the quandary is that flat spots alleviate, then repeat, and so forth.

 

[chop house]

Good thinking, the quandary is that flat spots alleviate, then repeat, and so forth.

standing waves

 

[CA_Shooter]

My statement, in other words, do not look for a flat spot on the MV vs charge weight and expect to find the minimum vertical dispersion somewhere there.

Aren't you looking for adjacent increasing linear loads?

Wouldn't this be no different than looking for a flat spot?

Flat spot or an increase in velocity could just be noise.

Both theories are looking at the velocity to tell the story