Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Which computer based ballistics program?

I am at a stage in my life where I like to sit and play w/velocities and powder in print. Which one of the computer based ballistic programs is the easiest to understand and play with. My son wants to purchase for one for me this Christmas. Help me out here guys. powdr

Powdr:

I'm already past your stage in life and aspirations. So I'm understanding perfectly what you desire.

In all of my years I have seen just about everything in internal and external ballistics. I have piles stacked up.

The single one that comes to the forefront without question, as head and shoulders above the pack, is:

http://www.neconos.com/details3.htm

I think it costs around $158 or so - very well worth the price.

The creators of this software are apparently borderline geniuses.

powdr, wait till cermalubes new program comes out. It'll blow the rest outta the water......

Never used anything but free programs. Current one is a Windows program called PointBlank. Not heavy on features, but has everything I need as a hunter.

If you want one with lots of bells and whistles, QuickLoad is the first that comes to mind.

powdr,

I'd guess you are talking about external ballistics (once the bullet leaves the barrel) and not internal ballistics (like QuickLOAD predicting powder charges, etc)?

And how simple do you need? Something very basic with fewer features? Or something that is simple to start with that you can learn the more advanced features over time?

Oehlers Ballistic explorer is good, but I also have Sierras Infinity which works good also. Toss up between the 2 IMO.

Huntsman, I hope your day is starting off in a pleasant manner.

Every calculation will be "up to 300 fps faster"

I hope powdr doesn't have to wait too long, what with all the "high math" that's gonna be involved.

Geno

I just use JBM. I really can't speak to accuracy of the math going on behind the scenes, but it seems to work well and allows of a lot of playing with the variables. I like that they continually update the bullet data base and even include the information on bullets Brian Litz has tested. His tests and resulting modified BCs are great to have. Some, like the .338 180 BT/Accubond are quite a bit different than published.


JBM

Edit: Neconos, aka Quickload, is one I have played with quite a bit. I cannot say I am confident at all in their internal ballistics calculations. It may very well be operator error... However, I have developed many loads and then recreated them in QL. With enough tweaking I can get the program to effectively simulate the load. Then, if I only change the bullet, same primer, brass and powder, it is way off again. It seems I can only replicate reality if know the answer first.

Quickload. It comes bundled with Quick Target for external ballistics.

Oehlers Ballistic Explorer, this is what I have,it works okay. I have been thinking about adding another program.

PRM, with Quickload, the measurements you use must be accurate. The default database is very rarely that.

Bullet length, weight, bearing surface, ect., all need to be measured, as well as the case capacity in grains of water. The distance to lands are important, and I enter that as my OAL. That would be OAL measured to the tip of the bullet if it were to touch the lands.

If you've slugged the bore, those measurements help.

It has no means of accounting for primer brisance. I will adjust burn rate of the powder once I get some chrono data.

I have found it to be pretty accurate with bottleneck rifle cases and pistol sized straight walled cases, but it's all over the place with big straight walled cases and will predict pressure high. The "fudge factor" (I add 3.2 to 7 percent case capacity) I use changes a bit with weight of bullet, with heavier bullets requiring less adjustment. Obviously this requires chrono data to do the adjusting, but as time goes by I'm getting more data to base an initial prediction on.

I find myself using the Oehler Ballistic Explorer more than anything else.

Particularly useful is the ability to compare three loads at the same time.

For example, you can input your favorite load at the lowest velocity you recorded, the average and the highest and compare, both graphically and numerically, the difference.

It is easy to use and has more features than most people will need. In other words, it works and will grow with you if you want to get deeper "into the weeds".

I've not seen any other program that will compare multiple loads at the same time. (I'm sure I've not seen every program but I've seen a lot of them).

Especially when paired with the new S&B reticle.

________________________________________________________________

When I use Quick Load I have to watch it , and myself, like a Hawk. Check everything.

It has an autofill feature that selects the bullet. If you change to a different bullet, and leave everything the same, you will get major differences. That illustrates the Vast DIFFERENCES FROM ONE BULLET TO ANOTHER.

It further demonstrated the major variables in all aspects; case, cartridge, barrel length, groove diameter, case fill and free space as well as powders.

I have found thousands of psi differences and hundreds of feet difference's. In some rare instances it does throw out mysterious data. But I have found that when I use the readily available data from the load books and manufacturers websites that often MANY results are remarkably close within a few feet or psi - "sometimes".

QL is very sophisticated and advanced. Nothing else that I have seen comes close.

It also affords the opportunity to develop loads for heavy calibers and big bullets loaded down to slower velocities and less recoil using lead bullets and some faster powders. Thus you can shoot bench rest more economically without getting your shoulder busted, avoid misfires and bullets stuck in the barrel.

Using the base (case) to ogive dimension would indicate a deeply seated bullet and throw off the calculations.

With bullets seated into the land, increase the start initiation pressure.

See bold. Better wording was probably in order, but the gist is you have to use OAL to the tip once the ogive touches the lands as a field entry. Ogive being "it".

Actual OAL will be a predetermined amount from that OAL field entry, hence, the lands.

Yes, into the lands will increase start pressure, but you are not doing so, just compensating for the room the bullet has to start it's run. QL does not have a "Freebore" entry, so that's how I account for it.

It seems to have helped with the accuracy of a prediction, especially once I nail the burn rate of a particular lot of powder.

I believe we are on the same page, I am loading .010" into the lands and set my OAL at that length, but I increase shot start pressure since I am jamming bullets.

Yessir, that is correct. Having never done that, I wouldn't know how much to increase.

You played with that parameter (shot start) until the prediction was reasonable?

I have not worried so much with actual velocity being consistent with QL, I use it to predict a max pressure and work up to the powder charge as if I used a load manual, plus a chrony.

On the shot start pressure, I use the QL guideline, 3625 psi for jacketed +7200 psi for touching the lands.

Dang, yall got me scared to death. All of the measurements, how far off the lands, did you do a chamber cast, primer brisance...hell I'm just going to do it the old way and save my money. If I need to know ballistics I'll just use HuntigNut. powdr