Life Of A Support Person
(or why some people can't get help)

We have always tried to answer emailed questions. Most magazines are doing such a poor job of covering technical issues and some of the best books are long out of print it is getting hard for new shooters to find good information. This is our way of fighting "dumbing down of American shooters".

Normally the questions people send are thought provoking and people are appreciative of our efforts. We can usually explain things so anyone can understand. However, on occasion we get questions from people who want simple answers involving complex subjects without any effort on their part. These people often get rude when they cannot grasp a concept and we cannot explain it so they understand. The following is a recent transcript of email correspondence from Calgary about our Shooting Lab demo. Some may find it mildly entertaining... in sort of a morbid way.

" Message: dear sir wind drift in this program is effected only by B.C. and velocity. Is it not also affected by the weight of the bullet compared to the size of the side view area that is available for the wind to push against. Is it not affected by the law that I believe states something like: it takes Y amount of force to move an object of one pound a distance of one foot. And is the force of a 10 mph wind on an object greater when it has a larger area to push on?

Two bullets one with a weight of 115 gr and a bc of .580 and another with a weight of 178 and a bc of .580 are fired at the same velocity at a target at 1000 yards in a 20 mph 9 o'clock wind. Is the wind drift the same? And is this proven in real life conditions or only in a computer program with perhaps a few variables missing? We seem to get more drift from lighter bullets at windy matches. but haven't done a real test side by side. But we may try firing rounds side by side at the exact same time. With respect Thanks Doug"

I immediately saw the source of his confusion. He is working with G1 B.C,'s that are inflated by conversion to G1 and believes, as so many do, that if the bullets have the same B.C. they will produce the same trajectory. That is only correct if the B.C.'s are valid and trajectories are calculated using a drag model for the standard projectile of the same shape and material. If the bullets had the same shape, they could not have the same B.C. He is trying to compare apples and oranges without understanding what a B.C. is. He also admits he is disadvantaged because he has not shot the bullets at long range. There was every reason to believe with just a little coaching and use of the demo, he could have an epiphany.

The cross wind force vector changes adds bullet drift horizontally as a function of the velocity (or time) it takes to travel the range. Since the velocity is always eroding and time to cross any given point is increasing, the wind produces a corresponding horizontal curve at extreme long ranges and looks nearly straight at short ranges.

Since it is the BC and muzzle velocity that establishes the down range velocity erosion, indeed the wind drift is a function of those two parameters.

In reality the two bullets would never shoot at the same velocity. Also, it is not vary probable that bullets of differing weight would end up with the same BC (if they were calculated correctly).

To make things worse, the cross wind component is rarely consistent through out the entire range. This is perhaps the most difficult information to glean from real world conditions.

1) Are you accepting published G1 BC's and using the G1 Drag Model for Boat Tails? That will not work well to forecast down range velocity and is the reason we provided tools so you can properly model trajectories to long ranges. When shooting a Boat Tail you should be using a drag model that matches the shape (use coef of drag analysis to determine which matches best) and should probably measure your own velocity erosion and calculate a correct BC for the model.

2) If you are seeing a difference in drift at long ranges, and are using G1 you should be seeing an even greater difference in path. G1 will only hold for boat tails to around 400 or 500 yards. The G1 drag model is not capable of accurately predicting velocities to 1000 yards for even tangent ogive flat based bullets, let alone a boat tail.

There is more information in the technical addendum of the docs and on our web site about this. http://www.shootingsoftware.com/coefficients.htm.

The next response from him was unexpected. I don't think he read anything I said, certainly did not read the reference provided or try what I suggested he do in the software demo.

"Dear Jim
I am disappointed with your response. I have read Robert A. Rinker's book on advanced ballistics and I am already quite aware of all the things you have mentioned. I am quite aware of the different drag factors, that is why I chose your calculator, because it recognizes them! What I don't understand and it seems rather peculiar is why you didn't answer my question? It would lead me to believe perhaps your calculator does in fact have a few variables missing also, and that you are just trying to side step the issue so you don't have to address it or admit it.

And just to set the record straight, you said " In reality the two bullets would never shoot at the same velocity" That is not true. David Tubb and Sierra have developed a 6mm,115 gr. bullet with a BC of .585 and a new cartridge 6mmXC that can be shoot at a velocity of 3000 ft /sec. and Hornady Amax has a .30 cal. 178 gr. bullet with a BC of .580. that can be shoot at 3000 ft/s out of any 300 win mag.

The reason I want to buy a calculator is that it seems to many of us shooting 1000 yd competitions that when it is very windy that the heavier bullets seem to be less affected by the wind. I want to calculate accurately the difference in wind drift between 6mm 115gr. BC .585 in a 6mmXC at 3000 f/s and 6.5mm 140gr. BC .618 in a 6.5 x55 Ackley Improved at 2950 f/s and .30 cal. 178gr. BC .580 at 3000 f/s in a 300 win. mag. and in the same gun also some .210 Berger's BC .640 (questionable) at 2950 f/s and some .240 sierras BC .711 at 2800 F/s .

Did you not understand my original question? I thought I had made it quite clear. Pease read it again and if it is not clear to you let me know and I will try to explain it you in better terms. I will look up the name of these laws and state them word for word and get the name of the famous person who stated them, if you are not already familiar with them. If you are qualified to make up ballistic calculators I would have thought you would know of them already!

As I see it there are three possibilities, the one I mentioned above, or you either didn't understand my question or you don't know the answer, so you didn't give me one. I am not going to buy your calculator until I know that it includes all the variables that affect wind drift, I can estimate myself. I want to know what happens (to use your words) "in reality".

Potential customer
Seeing suspicious behavior
Doug."

Either he does not know he is communicating with the owner of the company and thinks he can bully support personnel, is a classic example of when a little knowledge is dangerous or just a rude individual. It is obvious he is not comprehending most of what he reads. Good software should be a learning tool, not a replacement for real world experiences. I am beginning to think he has never tried any other ballistics software. I could see where this is going so I sent the following.

Doug;

You asked why "wind drift is affected only by B.C. and velocity", and I answered correctly. I don't "Make up ballistics calculators". I wrote a computer software program using the latest point mass algorithms developed by the small arms group at the U.S. Army's ballistics lab in Aberdeen, MD.

Windage calculations are quite simple and are always completed AFTER velocity erosion (or time to range) has been calculated using the B.C. and starting velocity. The firing solutions used in modern weapons systems like the M1 Tank, Palladin, etc. do not use B.C.'s. Large munition systems use the Ceof. of drag for the projectile and 6 degree of freedom models but windage is calculated the same way.

Go back to the 1860's to 80's and you will see this is how it was done by Mayevski, Siacci and Ingals. There has been no reason for it to change, especially for small arms. There are other differences between software titles, but this is never different.

I suggest you reconsider your basic assumptions and not get caught up in inflated B.C.'s used for marketing efforts. The B.C.'s you are comparing are not correct. They are all converted to G1! If it were not for the refusal of the industry to publish correct B.C.'s, Shooting Lab would probably not exist. Have you read the technical addendum in the documentation about B.C.'s?

Run trajectories for those bullets using the G1 B.C.'s in any software (and G1 in SL) and you will not get trajectories to 1,000 yards that resemble real world results. If you have not discovered that, you do not understand why Shooting Lab is different.

The standard projectile always has a B.C. of 1, is 1 inch in dia. and weighs one pound. Do you believe those bullets really retain 60% of the velocity of the standard projectile? You don't need to be a physicist to recognize there is something wrong with their B.C.'s.

Enter their dimensions in the Coef of Drag analysis and plot the data to see what they actually are (under B.C. button). Flip between G1 and G5, G7 etc. That should help you understand what is going on.

I stand by my original statement. These bullets can not produce the same velocity erosion as might be expected reviewing their published B.C.'s. The 30 should have a B.C. of around .354. If the sixes are VLD profiles they will be in the neighborhood of .289 (G7), otherwise even less.

Email anyone else and you should get the same answer to your original question....that is, if they answer it correctly. Most could not.

If you are still having a problem grasping this; feel free to respond but without the snide comments. Those comments are not appreciated and suggest you would not be a good customer.

Sincerely;

Jim Ristow
President, CEO
Recretional Software, Inc.

As I thought would be the case, he did not investigate any of my suggestions and continues to insult. He still thinks he "deserves" help and I need a problem customer who is not ready for the product. There is still no indication he understands what a B.C. is and is still trying to relate incorrect B.C.'s to the problem. He seems to want me to "spoon" feed him all the information on our web site with no effort on his part. Even clicking a link and reviewing text seems to be too much work. Worse yet, he does not know how rude he is and thinks he can continue to make snide comments.

"Dear Jim
I am entitled to make any kind of comments I like , how you interpret them is your problem. And you can't read properly, you don't understand the difference between a
question and a statement. I stated. "wind drift in your program is affected only by BC and velocity." And then I asked a question which you still haven't answered! I asked the question, is the wind drift of a bullet affected by the area that the force of the wind has to act against.

Perhaps the question is not clear. Wait for a day when the wind is nice and steady from the west at 25 mph. take a piece of 3/4 inch ply wood 1 ft by 2 ft hold it perpendicular to the wind and walk the length of your foot ball field. when you get to the other end pick up a 3/4 inch 4 ft by 8 ft sheet of ply wood and try walking back to the other end. If you are strong enough you will get a lesson in aviation. That is what my question was about. I think if you re read it, you might see that!

I am not a physicist and perhaps there is some reason, I don't understand, that this effect does not affect projectiles. You haven't to this time even addressed the question, or given me any valid reason why I should reconsider my basic assumptions which I believe are concurrent with the laws of physics. You still are dancing around my question and not addressing it which still leads me to believe you don't know the answer either. The only thing I haven't grasped is the question you haven't answered.

And which book on business did you read that all customers weren't good customers?
Doug"

Most would have cut him off at this point. He obviously does not understand all customers are not good customers and some are simply not worth dealing with. I am obviously dealing with someone who has serious problems and wanted to see how far he would take it.

Doug;

And I reserve the right to not help you or accept a sale from you. You obviously believe I know the answer to your question or you would not be writing. If not, please stop emailing. Playing "pot calling the kettle black" does not help you learn. If you don't understand something simply say so.

You should not try to picture windage as side force on the bullet but rather as if the air the bullet is traveling through is moving side wise. I understand your plywood example but it is not correct. It is similar to a boat or plane navigating through a cross current or wind. For either, they are simply traveling through air or water with no sensation of side force on the hull. Without a navigation reference the ground covered would always seem the same to passengers. Unlike a boat or plane, knowing what the bullet's velocity is at any point down range is the problem. This is built into the B.C. Once you know the velocity at any point down range, the drift calculations are identical to calculating drift in a boat or plane or any actual velocity over ground.

I think you are mixing two concepts. Heavy bullets perform better in wind because they "buck" the wind better and ALWAYS have a larger B.C. for a given shape. Wind is never constant down range. There are eddies, areas where the air is less or more dense, rising/falling air etc. The greater mass of a heavier bullet will always perform better in the real world because it takes more force to turn the heavier mass. This is not included in small arms ballistics because it is impossible to know these factors while taking a shot.

Even if you could measure it, it would change before you took the next shot. It is just not practical. Drift is always calculated assuming constant wind through the entire
trajectory, even though the real world is not that perfect. The bullet is slowing so drift is more pronounced at each down range segment because it takes more time to traverse that range. Just as if the boat or planes speed through water is gradually slowed in a cross current or wind.

Once you understand this you should realize I have been answering your question all along.

This thread is such a classic example of how the industry is misleading shooters with bogus B.C.'s I may post it on my web site for others to read. Indeed a similar ploy is now being used to sell light .204's as better calibers then .224's.

Jim Ristow

For this response he embedded his comments directly into the above email from me. Shows allot about how he thinks....or not. It is scary.

"Doug;

And I reserve the right to not help you or accept a sale from you.
***Which book of GOOD business did you learn that in?

You obviously believe I know the answer to your question or you would not be writing.
****Originally I had hoped you did, after your first reply I didn't think you knew and after this letter I know you don't know the answer.

If not, please stop emailing. Playing "pot calling the kettle black" does not help you learn.
*****You haven't taught me anything, you have just repeated the same old wives tales I have read before, likely the same place you read them. Religion is based on blind faith. I am not prepared to learn from you or Rinker on that bases. I am looking for some scientific investigation that leads to scientific proof. Many people told others the world was flat, just because they believed it was so and told others the same, didn't make it true.

If you don't understand something simply say so.
**** I did! You should take your owmn advice and try the same!

You should not try to picture windage as side force on the bullet but rather as if the air the bullet is traveling through is moving side wise.
**** why shlouldn't I picture it that way? You just described two identical things.

I understand your plywood example but it is not correct.
**** I disagree and you haven't given me any scientific proof only the same old lame examples I read every where else.

It is similar to a boat or plane navigating through a cross current or wind. For either, they are simply traveling through air or water with no sensation of side force on the hull.
***I have heard this same example before and it makes no sense. how can you say there is no sensation of side force when it is the force of the side vector that causes the drift. Rinker makes the same ridiculas comparison on page 273 in his book, and talks about crab angles.What does that have to do with shooting a bullet out of a barrell? The theory is that if the stream is running at 10 mph a boat floating in it will move at 10 mile per hour down stream, no matter what the weight of the boat. I agree with that.

But it is rediculas to think that is an accurate comparison to shooting a bullet out of the barrell of a rifle. There is no stream inside the barrell that has the bullet up to the speed of the steam in a sideways motion before it exits the barrell and it certainly doesn't start moving at 90 degrees at the speed of the streem as soon as it exits the barrell. At this point when the bullet exits the muzzle I think YOU should try to picture windage as a side force on the bullet. ( As per your statement above how do you picture it differently at this point?) If you want to use that line of comparison lets put the rest of the factors in. Two boats same hull design, one weights 107 tons and has a side profile area of 600 square feet, the other weights 240 tons and has a side profile 900 square feet. ( A rough estimation only, that I think is a close comparison to the sizes of a 107 gr and a 240 gr bullet in weigh compared to the side profile area) They are both traveling at 25 knots across a large lake and enter a narrow chanel which meets a wide river at 90 degrees. The river is flowing at 10 miles per hour at 90 degrees to the chanel and is the only river in reality that is straight and has a constant flow all the way across and in its entire lenght. We talked both of these foolish captains into keeping there ruders straight and turning off there engines just before they reached the river. Which boat will hit the bank on the other side farther up stream?

I believe I am talking about momentum. Is that what you were refering to when you mentioned "buck" I couldn't find that term in any of my physics books or were you talking about horses? You state further down the page "The greater mass of a heavier bullet will always perform better in the real world because it takes more force to turn the heavier mass." Are you now "picturing windage as a side force on the bullet" that is going to turn a heavier mass less because it has more momentum which gives it a greater resistance to being pushed off course? If so why is the wind drift in your calculator not effected by the bullet weight? Is there a difference in windage between a Mack truck hitting a freight train and a Mack truck hitting a Volks wagon, presuming identical velocities where involved?

Without a navigation reference the ground covered would always seem the same to passengers.
****Not sure what this has to do with anything. There is no passengers on my bullets. Perhaps bullshit baffles brains was the intent?

Unlike boat or plane, knowing what the bullet's velocity is at any point down range is the problem. This is built into the B.C. Once you know the velocity at any point down range the drift calculations are identical to calculating drift in a boat or plane or any actual velocity over ground.

I think you are mixing two concepts. Heavy bullets perform better in wind because they "buck" the wind better and ALWAYS have a larger B.C. for a given shape.

*****We may agree on one thing, if you are actually saying that at the same velocity a heavier bullet has less wind drift than a lighter bullet of the same shape.( Now we are back to my original question about missing factors in all the calculators.) If this is the case then why is your calculator asking for BC's that I suspected were not acurate and you say you know are not acurate and the velocity only, to determine wind drift? Why doesn't it pull up a menu of bullet names that we klick on that you have already programed a shape to and then ask for the weight of that bullet. Then I believe we might get an acurate wind drift comparison from a calculator!

Wind is never constant down range. There are eddies, areas where the air is less or more dense, rising/falling air etc. The greater mass of a heavier bullet will always perform better in the real world because it takes more force to turn the heavier mass.
****Now you just agreed with what I have been talking about.

This is not included in small arms ballistics because it is impossible to know these factors while taking a shot.
******We do know these factors, it is the bullet weight.

Even if you could measure it, it would change before you took the next shot. It is just not practical. Drift is always calculated assuming constant wind through the entire
trajectory, even though the real world is not that perfect. The bullet is slowing so drift is more pronounced at each down range segment because it takes more time to traverse that range.
****** I already understand all this, (a mass affected by a force multiplied by the time it is affected) it has nothing to do with what I am talking about!

Just as if the boat or planes speed through water is gradually slowed in a cross current or wind.
***** people steer boats and planes and they have a continual force of excelleration. And they don't slow because of a 90 degree cross wind, actually They would go faster across ground. It only slows if they steer it into the wind, to keep it going to there intended destination instead of where the wind wants to push them. There is no constant force of excelleration on a bullet and no one riding on it with a steering wheel. So why do you and others keep touting this ridiculas analagy?

Once you understand this you should realize I have been answering your question all along.
*** I think we got a problem there.

This thread is such a classic example of how the industry is misleading shooters with bogus B.C.'s
****Now the bogus B.C.'s I can believe. This is what this whole dicussion is about. My doughts about the accuracy of a ballistic calculator that only takes into acount B.C. and velocity and doesn't consider the weight of the projectile which gives it a larger momentum. What did you say earlier " it takes more force to turn the heavier mass." even when the wind is constant. AND THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INDUSTRY MISS LEADING ME! If you know there numbers are bullshit, then why are you asking for
there B.C. bullshit information to be put in your calculator, instead of the weight and a proper shape that you so wisely atribute to each bullet?

I may post it on my web site for others to read.
******Be sure to include all of it.

Indeed a similar ploy is now being used to sell light .204's as better calibers then .224's.
*******in closing I might like to add that in my first letter all I did was have the addacity to suggest perhaps the world was round. No reason for you to take offense, reasonable human beings can agree to disagree. It is also a fact that people with a self esteem or ego problem are in continual denial, can never admit to perhaps being wrong about anything and are not reasonable people.
Doug"

He believes I am wrong, several hundred years of physics is wrong and everything written on the subject is wrong. Must be the M1 firing system doesn't work either, eh? Even though I explained why he was confused it was not what he wanted to hear. If anyone in Calgary knows this guy, I suggest you stay clear or seek intervention on his behalf. Thankfully he is not representative of most Western Canadians I know.

You would think when he read this he would realize what he did. But no, and he sent the following.

"***** Now you are a lier! I'm not sure what all you removed from your corespondence with me, but you didn't post the entire email thread. You removed some of your reply to me... I will include your sentences that preceed and follow the sentence that you left out, just for clarification. The sentence you left out is the one in capital letters. And I quote Jim Ristow, "I suggest you reconsider your basic assumptions and not get caught up in inflated B.C.'s used for marketing efforts. TUBB IS GREAT AT SELF MARKETING. The B.C's you are comparing are not correct."

I see you are having some fun at my expense. Enjoy yourself. Now I suggest you put all of this letter on your web site. Don't leave anything out this time! I am entertaining the thought of sending it to David Tubb, perhaps he is interested to know what you have to say about him and me. Just in case you decide to tell more lies to conver up this one I would be happy to forward to anyone who wants it, our real corespondence with nothing left out..... XXXXX@XXXXXX.net I have no shame in believing the world is round! Who knows I may even be wrong. There is no shame in being wrong and I have no problem admitting that I have made many error's in judgement in my life. I have said many times I was wrong, you are right, I stand corrected. But certainly I believe you don't know if I am wrong! You have not referred to a single law of physics in any of your explanations.
Regards
Doug"

I admit I deleted the reference to Tubb and his email address. Those are the only alterations to the transcript. There was no reason to include the short comment from private correspondence in a public post. Tubb is good at self promotion and the statement was not derogatory. He is publishing G1 based B.C.'s as is the practice of the entire industry.

It would be irresponsible to publish the email address as requested. It did not look as if he was using an email address he owns. Who knows what is going on here. Doug could be anything from a smart little juvenile "twit" to a senile old goof or an unbalanced jerk. I gave him enough information to find his answer in any physics book. It seems he already has at least one good text with a similar explanation.

And he is still sending even more hostile email which goes directly to the trash. If anyone would like to add comments to the page, feel free to email. Doug may read your comments. Hopefully he will learn why no one wants to help him.

A friend with corporate tech support experience who has a technical shooting web site made the following comments.

Possible reasons for his email.

1) Surely you have displeased Allah?
2) A little knowledge is dangerous and this guy has "little knowledge?"
3) He's just recently been divorced and needs someone to argue with?
4) He thinks he knows more than everyone else 'cause he slept at a Holiday Inn?
5) You have a sign on your back that reads, "I like stupid questions?"

He then added; "I had a guy go absolutely ballistic (no pun intended) on me about 6 months ago when I included the following quote in my email regarding the use of sub-caliber handguns for self-defense. "There's an old saying from an OSS firearms instructor that goes, " If you must carry a .25acp, don't load it. If you load it you might shoot it. If you shoot it you might hit somebody with it and he'd then be justified in killing you because you attacked him." He replied with an obscenity laden email calling me all kinds of names for stating that he should be shot and killed."

Just glad to know I am not the only one who gets email like this.