Ballistic calculators cannot be relied upon to give accurate bullet drops

Humpy

Well-Known Member
As the title reveals Ballistic Calculators are not reliable. Here is how the US Army and the Army Materials Systems Analysis Activity performs such.



When I got to Aberdeen Proving Ground I linked up with a guy in BRL (Ballistic Research Lab) and he told me that down range performance duplicates ballistic calculations 5% of the time. For instance the projected bullet drops might be dead on at 300 and 800 meters but nowhere else.

To be sure the ranges at Aberdeen are about three feet above sea level so there is no deviations from elevation of different ranges.

Now that being said if you get data in US Army Manuals you can be assured it was developed from actual testing at Aberdeen as follows:



We have two longer distance ranges at Aberdeen and one went to 1500 yards and one went to 2500 yards. The one at 2500 yards at first look you think is a drive in cinema screen placed at the end of a one lane road perfectly straight. It is 32 feet high and 32 feet wide and has plywood covering entire face and over that is placed white target cloth that is six feet wide.

Three rifles are selected out of ten and the one with the worst dispersion capability , the one with the median dispersion capability and the one with the smallest dispersion capability are fired after they are zeroed to deliver POA/POI at 100 yards on a indoor range AND THE SIGHTS ARE NEVER TOUCHED AGAIN.

Only NRA Certified Master Class shooters are used to conduct this testing and can be left or right hand shooters.

A target is placed on the board and a string bob is used to establish a vertical line through the target and a line with permanent ink is made extending below the target for the appropriate drop distance below the aiming point.

Another horizontal line is placed across the board that intersects the vertical line at the 6 o'clock position on the target. This gives four quadrants.

At the closest range the target is plotted every ten shots as follows:

Shots in the top left quadrant are classified as +/-, the top right quadrant is +/+, the bottom left quadrant is -/- and the bottom right quadrant is -/+. The plumb bob is used and the shot is measured to the closest millimeter to center of hole from the horizontal line and the vertical line and recorded on a form at each range. 3 ten shot groups are fired by each firer with each of the three weapons separately.

All this data is fed into a computer and the computer will reproduce the shot groups for each ten shot string and calculate the bullet drops, the extreme spread of each ten shot group and then compiled in a massive target and the average groups and ballistic drops for all three weapons are calculated both individually and collectively.

The same lot number of ammunition certified to meet dispersion acceptance requirements by the test center before it leaves the production facility. For 5.56 it is done at 200 yards, for 7.62-50 cal is done at 600 yards.

Bottom line is 90 rounds from each shooter is plotted and computer prints out actual impact dispersions and no projections are used. Then the Firing Tables are published showing the average of all thee rifles from all shooters is published. So at a min you have 180 shot data base or a 270 round data base hard data record for each yard/meter line as the testing calls for.

I was the "Control Shooter" on the M16A1E1 Test (adopted as M16A2 by USMC and US Army) as the analytical people wanted to make sure the same person fired all targets with all weapons with the same sight settings.

In short we were just looking for dispersion data and not a score.

Obviously as the range increased the target was raised and a guy in a bucket would hold the plumb bob for the vertical shots and a 5 ft certified level was used to plot the shots left and right of the vertical line.

After that test I was requested to conduct the same testing on the first AK74 we got in the states in 82 and the Army Materials Systems Analysis Agency (AMSAA) had the rifle and wanted the same control shooter. I was told it was to be exactly as I had conducted the M16A1E1 Series and the same range, target, time of day was duplicated down to the same range crew was used to plot the targets.

This was classified so tight it was not given a code name and I could not discuss it until 2015 when I was released as the AMSAA analyst did not publish data admitting we even had it until 1986 and there were two more done. Only the last one was released and the original was never released and the last one authored by same analyst is available on internet. The testing was conducted on the weekends when the Proving Ground was closed.

If anyone is interested I have pictures of the AK74 testing being conducted with me firing.
 
It was great and I treasure the memories. A few years ago I was talking to the retired chief of our branch and I asked him how many people had become certified and when t;hey started and he said they started in 1946 and he had gone back and looked at reports and took down names of who wrote them and best he could figure out was about 75 were certified in small arms. All Test Directors are issued a number and that can be large cal, tracked vehicles, wheeled vehicles, etc. There is about 12 fields one can get certified in. There were only 12 at any given time in small arms. Some military were certified but rotated out. When I was there two of us were active duty military.

I know of one retired in Wyoming and three more in Maryland and the rest are gone.

I learned things like a gun can kill you and your buddies with none being shot or the gun blowing up. If anyone has any idea of how that happens respond.
 
That is really interesting stuff. I sometimes wish I had a zeroing target 32 feet high!
When the conclusion was reached that the ballistic calculators were only accurate 5% of the time, were they using G1, G7 or Doppler derived custom drag curves as is the current trend? Also to what degree of accuracy did the software have to predict the drop data to be pronounced correct?
 
That is really interesting stuff. I sometimes wish I had a zeroing target 32 feet high!
When the conclusion was reached that the ballistic calculators were only accurate 5% of the time, were they using G1, G7 or Doppler derived custom drag curves as is the current trend? Also to what degree of accuracy did the software have to predict the drop data to be pronounced correct?
What i was led to belive was the g7, whilst accurate was only accurate until the bullet starting going subsonic due to the effects that couldn't be seen, obviously they then started using the doppler system which allowed them to track the bullet past that zone and find what effects dropping transonic had and what effects going through subsonic had. I am also interested to what level of accuracy the software had. Also, judging by what humpty said im presuming they were using standard ammo, not reloads?
 
SRVET I don't know. Insofar as data reliability BRL did not trust them as they had lots of computers going at the time. Only time I almost did work with a BRL Engineer was he had been tapped to develop a 1500 yard MOA sniper round. I understood immediately as I had been tasked to advise the AMSAA analyst of the feasibility of a 1500 yard Cal 50 rifle and I laid out the requirements and told them to forget arsenal ammo as Cal 50 at that time would barely print in the end of a 55 gal drum at 600 yards.

This led to the development of the 338 Lapua Magnum through the work of Bob McCoy of BRL and Lapua engineers and Bob told me he was going to request I conduct the testing at 2500 yard range when he got a rifle built to take it. I was asked to take another position in the Treasury Dept and the Marine Corps wanted me to attend a sniper rifle conference at Quantico and they wrote our Commissioner and requested my presence and he directed I go.

Bob was there and he asked me if I could come back for the test and I told him to write the Commissioner and I was pretty sure he would agree. He said he would be ready to go in about three weeks. I did not hear anything further from Bob so I called him five weeks after the conference and learned he had dropped dead two weeks after the conference at work and was only 55. After that I don't know who took over his project but I have since heard someone else took credit for the development. He may have overseen the testing but the development was under Bob McCoy.

During Sandbox I understand there was a lot of refinement work done on Cal 50 for sniper work and it is up and running. Amazing how much funding you can get to do something when there is a war on.

CIP Coronavirus experts said a month ago it would be 12 to 18 months out and now it looks like something may be ready in another couple months. Hope is hits a Central on the first shot! ! ! !!

As of last night no one in my postal code has died from it but I live in a very rural area and there are like five private ranges in my Range Zone how and last I heard 55 ranges in just my county registered and that was 20 years ago so I imagine there are many more by now. You know you are in one as on the highway the county put up signs saying SHOOTING RANGE NOISE AREA on roads one mile from the range in all directions. The property next door to me is perfect for a one mile range and will probably be sold within a couple years as he owner is in her mid 80s.
 
WE HAVE A WINNER WITH Dalua, congratulations Sir ! ! ! ! ! Very good. Were you in a armored outfit?
 
That’s really interesting and thanks for taking the time to write. I’ve a few questions if you don’t mind, all from an amateur so excuse me if they are silly:

1. what do you think makes ballistic calculators only accurate 5% is the maths or science fundamentally flawed or is it people’s inability to input accurate data. For example wind at a distant target is very different from the firing point?

2. what you describe from a lay person perspective is statistical testing; is this done in different environmental conditions and aggregate changes made to drops for different parts of the world.

3. did you tests ever include terminal performance and if so how was this measured.

thanks again and please excuse the barrage of questions I just find it very interesting.
 
Gandy by "terminal performance" do you mean wound cavitation? If that is your interest go here and download ten years worth of terminal performance data headed by Col Martin Fackler MD, Chief of the US Army Wound Ballistics Lab, Presidio, Calif. He was also the author of the Missile Caused Wounds chapter of the NATO Handbook on Emergency War Surgery you can download below.





The above is the minutes of a Wound Ballistics Workshop conducted at FBI Academy, Quantico that Fackler mailed me after the conference. that they did not have.



He also headed the International Wound Ballistics Assn and their Journal was published for ten years. Had you been a member you would have paid $600.00 for yearly membership for those ten years and here it is for free. Fackler was a good friend and we lectured together and when he started the association most of the board of directors were in Europe. He passed two years ago and I really miss getting his emails.

The Firearms Toolmarks Assn scanned every page of the journals and put them on the internet for the valuable information they contained. I was honored by his nominating me for full membership and was a charter member.
 
Last edited:
Humpy - that was a very interesting post and I would imagine a privilege for you to have been involved with.

Just one question - I am assuming that this test was conducted in the 80's so my question is (assuming I have read your post correctly) do you now consider that ballistic apps are more advanced today to give a higher percentage of accuracy no matter what range?
 
The main problem (I think) would not lie with the calculations derived from the Ballistic calculators but with the 'quality' of the ammunition itself.
To get everything right is very difficult. Yes using the same shooter, the same rifle, the same range at the same elevation in the same atmospheric conditions is a good start but to get the same load, the same primer detonation, the same seating, the same case dimensions and neck tension isn't that easy to achieve, even the coefficient of drag (as the bullet traveled through the barrel) would be difficult to maintain.

I'm surprised the gun wasn't clamped and the trigger activate/pulled mechanically.
Also these 'tests' were conducted some years ago, when many things were not as accurate as they are today, continuous research and development over 40 years in both manufacturing equipment/techniques and chemical engineering (for the propellants) makes for good progress. I would seroiusly doubt things are not 'significantly' improved and closer to calculated values.

As stalkers (in the main) we have a largely different requirement from the long range sniper, our accuracy is rarely tested over more than 350yds and our target is often larger than 1.5MOA at that range.

So what were the results @Humpy ?
Of your 90 shots .....
 
Last edited:
Machine rest testing is problematic as different weapon systems will not interchange with the fixtures. We did both human and hard mount (our terminology for machine rest) and hard mounts are used for weapons acceptance at the manufacturer and that only evaluates the dispersion and reveals if the bore is crooked. For instance M16 were supported by the buttstock clamped in and the muzzle clamped as the design prohibits clamping elsewhere.

Insofar as ammo quality is concerned I was told by the past chief of ammo that retired about five years back that the dispersion requirements were relaxed in order to get more ammo accepted since we are (far as I know) still in 386 which is the terminology for war production. US ammo is loaded on fully automated machinery but the finest ball ammo we ever saw was loaded by FN and called SS109. Lake City turns out 77 million rounds per day (all calibers) and unless something has changed only 5.56 is manufactured on the automated machinery at the rate of 12 rounds per second and the only thing they don't make is propellant and primers.

I don't know how FN did the SS109 but it was fabulous. So bottom line is technology is changing but the proof is in the ammo quality. I am not aware of any commercial ammo loaded on SCAMP system as the cost of them is really up there.

For instance the brass loaded to MILSPEC is much more durable and brass loaded by commercial vendors.

As you indicate things change. For instance the propellant used by Lake City is ball propellant and generally speaking it is more erosive on barrels than stick propellant. CIP I shut down the M16A1E1 Test as the barrels were completely gone at 6000 rounds. We went into a matrix comparison and shot 10,000 rounds a day for 14 straight days and the SS109 was added and the barrels with original ammo duplicated first test and the SS109 went for 12,000 rounds and still in spec.
 
Back
Top