Shoot2Hunt University

[Formidilosus]

What chrono do y'all use?

I had to correct muzzle velocity in Shooter App when I had a magnetospeed while using the BC from the bullet manufacturer.

Since I got the Garmin the calculations have been correct while using the BC from the bullet manufacturer.

The Garmin is the only consumer chrono that is accurate enough to not cause issues. Since using Garmins while trueing at long range, I have not had to change MV one time in bullets with solid BC numbers.

 

[Lawnboi]

Who still uses BC?

4 dof and AB cdm seems to produce more consistent results for me.

I think most of the truing done by people who are not super proficient is a product of environment. I have fallen into this trap, it caused me a lot of misses.

 

[Formidilosus]

Who still uses BC?

Me. Lots of people. Using real, Doppler BC numbers, you aren’t getting any more hits using a drag curve model.

4 dof and AB cdm seems to produce more consistent results for me.

AB tends to work fine and gives the exact same data as the BC in the entire terminal range- for Berger bullets. But, in others- especially Hornady- it’s widely off quite often.
4 DOF tends to give good data, and the same data in the entire terminal range of Hornady bullets; but with others- especially Bergers, it’s off enough to cause issues frequently.

I think most of the truing done by people who are not super proficient is a product of environment. I have fallen into this trap, it caused me a lot of misses.

That is correct.

 

[3gunyotehtr]

I am for sure not an engineer! Simple is best for me! I can shoot to 1150 from my house, I shoot on paper to get my real numbers, and adjust the calculator until it lines up with what I actually need. Then just use the app to adjust for environmentals. Then I don't have to think too hard! Probably just been making it harder on myself.

 

[Lawnboi]

Me. Lots of people. Using real, Doppler BC numbers, you aren’t getting any more hits using a drag curve model.






AB tends to work fine and gives the exact same data as the BC in the entire terminal range- for Berger bullets. But, in others- especially Hornady- it’s widely off quite often.
4 DOF tends to give good data, and the same data in the entire terminal range of Hornady bullets; but with others- especially Bergers, it’s off enough to cause issues frequently.

That is correct.

Totally agree that at terminal ranges for most these bullets people are getting pretty deep in the weeds, and potentially causing issues messing with known velocities and BCs. I havnt felt the need to true for sub 1000 yard shooting at all the last few years. Using known equipment, a Garmin and accurate inputs don’t have to true.

Yep AB for Berger, Hornady for Hornady. Real time environmental and measured yardages(too many trust the gun range or don’t understand their rangefinder.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I think most of the truing done by people who are not super proficient is a product of environment. I have fallen into this trap, it caused me a lot of misses.

Bingo.

 

[HuntHarder]

AB and Bergers is like peas and carrots.
Fwiw, Hornady 4dof has consistently over stated DA changes for me.

 

[hereinaz]

I think most of the truing done by people who are not super proficient is a product of environment. I have fallen into this trap, it caused me a lot of misses.

True for me too. I wasted so much time on fuddlore then on overly technical stuff.

I run AB custom curves and never need to true, I mean AB doesn’t have start truing until after 1000 yards.

There should be no need for truing on a hunting rifle. When I thought I needed truing, it was my lack of shooting skills…

 

[RockAndSage]

Yes- because people delude themselves into believing that every little insignificant detail is the magical reason why they are missing 2 MOA targets- not that they suck and should learn to shoot more.

I think I'm going to institute a new rule for myself for 2026: every hour of gun or hunting content online is purchased with an hour of dry-fire, range time, and/or workout time. Because sucking less requires actual work.

 

[hereinaz]

I think I'm going to institute a new rule for myself for 2026: every hour of gun or hunting content online is purchased with an hour of dry-fire, range time, or/or workout time. Because sucking less requires actual work.

For 2026, I have a rough goal of shooting 1000 rounds a month. Buying a Tikka T1X to make it hurt the wallet less.

I will use AB for all the centerfire, and will really never have to use the truing function in AB, cause it asks for data out past 1000…

Like Form said, a good BC will work for hunting distances, which are well before the transonic range.

 

[BasicUtahrd95]

The Garmin is the only consumer chrono that is accurate enough to not cause issues. Since using Garmins while trueing at long range, I have not had to change MV one time in bullets with solid BC numbers.

Are the BC numbers advertised by bullet manufacturers good enough, or is there an independent source you use to get solid numbers?

 

[Formidilosus]

Are the BC numbers advertised by bullet manufacturers good enough, or is there an independent source you use to get solid numbers?

All depends on the bullet and manufacturer. Hornady’s G1 BC is almost always solid, same for Bergers numbers for bergers bullets, and Sierra’s for their SMK and TMK’s too. Almost all the smaller copper bullet companies fabricate their numbers.
Applied ballistics used to be the go to for real numbers for everyone. And then they “somehow” started consistently being low for Hornady and some Sierra’s. Basically when it comes to Hornady, Berger, Sierra (LR bullets) you can use their own stated BC and get good data.

That is in the terminal range of bullets- 1,800 to maybe 1,600fps impact. Once you get close to transonic, things can change.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

AB and Bergers is like peas and carrots.
Fwiw, Hornady 4dof has consistently over stated DA changes for me.

Anyone using hornady 4dof these days needs to stop haha.

 

[Formidilosus]

Anyone using hornady 4dof these days needs to stop haha.

Ain’t that the truth.

 

[solarshooter]

All depends on the bullet and manufacturer. Hornady’s G1 BC is almost always solid, same for Bergers numbers for bergers bullets, and Sierra’s for their SMK and TMK’s too. Almost all the smaller copper bullet companies fabricate their numbers.
Applied ballistics used to be the go to for real numbers for everyone. And then they “somehow” started consistently being low for Hornady and some Sierra’s. Basically when it comes to Hornady, Berger, Sierra (LR bullets) you can use their own stated BC and get good data.

That is in the terminal range of bullets- 1,800 to maybe 1,600fps impact. Once you get close to transonic, things can change.

I THINK AB calculates their BC all the way out to transonic, whereas other manufacturers might use a more "realistic" number like you stated. Have you found the AB CDMs (which should get around this) more or less accurate for Hornady?

Anyone using hornady 4dof these days needs to stop haha.

Yep. A friend found some real bugs in the software that to my knowledge still haven't been addressed. Granted it took some pretty extreme conditions (high angle, high wind) to see the effects but it was way way off.

Fundamentally, once I started thinking of bullets in terms of quickdrop and wind number, the perceived differences between bullets all really shrank. Basically any of the 100+gr match bullets out of a 18"+/-2" 6CM is going to fly the same for all intents and purposes. You might get a few tenths of difference here and there but they are much more similar than different. The most important things are consistent flight and terminal performance.

 

[Formidilosus]

I THINK AB calculates their BC all the way out to transonic, whereas other manufacturers might use a more "realistic" number like you stated. Have you found the AB CDMs (which should get around this) more or less accurate for Hornady?

The CDM is generally “ok”, but there are definitely times that even inside of 800 yards it gives data that is noticeably too high. Yet the data required to hit matches the G1 BC per Hornady spot on.

Yep. A friend found some real bugs in the software that to my knowledge still haven't been addressed. Granted it took some pretty extreme conditions (high angle, high wind) to see the effects but it was way way off.

There all kinds of issues with 4dof…. That beyond the horrible user interface.

Fundamentally, once I started thinking of bullets in terms of quickdrop and wind number, the perceived differences between bullets all really shrank. Basically any of the 100+gr match bullets out of a 18"+/-2" 6CM is going to fly the same for all intents and purposes. You might get a few tenths of difference here and there but they are much more similar than different. The most important things are consistent flight and terminal performance.

Getting good data is so easy, yet all people want to do is make it complicated and difficult. I think because it makes them feel “special”. But if you admit how easy it is for all of this stuff, then the only thing that would make one special is their speed and accuracy in the field. And that isn’t as “cool” as dork level nonsense.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Are the BC numbers advertised by bullet manufacturers good enough, or is there an independent source you use to get solid numbers?

Hornady and Berger G1 BCs have been very reliable to well past hunting shot yardages for me for a long time now.

A good chrono like a garmin and using G1 BCs with good bullets will lead to consistent hits in most cases if you can shoot well and call wind well.

I have seen instances of the 143 ELDX needing velocity adjustments past around 850-900ish yards.

 

[3gunyotehtr]

I guess that I really don't see what is complicated about a minor adjustment to bc to perfect the data. I run a tall target test to make sure that there are no major anomalies with the scope, make sure all inputs are correct, get the data from the ballistic calculator, shoot it on paper out to whatever with enough rounds to find true center, and tweak it from there. Seems to work. But I guess I don't know what I don't know.

 

[solarshooter]

I guess that I really don't see what is complicated about a minor adjustment to bc to perfect the data. I run a tall target test to make sure that there is no major anomalies with the scope, make sure all inputs are correct, get the data from the ballistic calculator, shoot it on paper out to whatever with enough rounds to find true center, and tweak it from there. Seems to work. But I guess I don't know what I don't know.

Because you're more likely to mess it up/throw things off and you're getting almost no perceptible benefit.

 

[Formidilosus]

I guess that I really don't see what is complicated about a minor adjustment to bc to perfect the data. I run a tall target test to make sure that there is no major anomalies with the scope, make sure all inputs are correct, get the data from the ballistic calculator, shoot it on paper out to whatever with enough rounds to find true center, and tweak it from there. Seems to work. But I guess I don't know what I don't know.

Because the BC variation for barrel to barrel is unmeasurable on target at any range where conditions can be accounted for with sufficient accuracy. All you do by messing with BC of real numbers with any good bullet is add to the noise already present.