- Thread starter Lowlight
- Start date
Great podcast-Re Raton matches no longer:
There is also a similar 1 shot, hit or miss, move to the next, match in California. Several other Hide members have shot it.
It features a diverse FOF at every station. The COF is on obstacles or as an option, a lower class and WAY WAY easier all prone COF, for first time shooters.
The hike in the hills to the various stations isn’t too bad, but the wind can be the real challenge. Yes, it is generally windy.
NRL22 matches are usually the night before with $5 camping.
The match director is great. PM me if you’d like more info..
Edited to add I am in China for a couple more weeks so my response might be a bit slow..
There is also a similar 1 shot, hit or miss, move to the next, match in California. Several other Hide members have shot it.
It features a diverse FOF at every station. The COF is on obstacles or as an option, a lower class and WAY WAY easier all prone COF, for first time shooters.
The hike in the hills to the various stations isn’t too bad, but the wind can be the real challenge. Yes, it is generally windy.
NRL22 matches are usually the night before with $5 camping.
The match director is great. PM me if you’d like more info..
Edited to add I am in China for a couple more weeks so my response might be a bit slow..
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
Awesome podcast! This is a subject that gets far too little attention.
The BC method is the method I have been using for about 20 years now. There are a few tweaks that fine tune it to different rounds and altitudes.
The baseline conditions that make it work best, as is, are: a bullet at 2,800fps at 2,000ft elevation (28.0Hg):
The base wind (MIL wind) should be adjusted up or down 0.5mph for every 2,000ft of elevation.
So a .600 BC bullet at 6,000ft would be a 7, the same bullet at sea level would be a 5.5
The base wind (MIL wind) should be adjusted up or down 1mph for every 200fps of velocity difference from 2,800fps.
So a .600 BC bullet at 3,000fps would be a 7, at 2,600fps it would be a 5
The BC method is the method I have been using for about 20 years now. There are a few tweaks that fine tune it to different rounds and altitudes.
The baseline conditions that make it work best, as is, are: a bullet at 2,800fps at 2,000ft elevation (28.0Hg):
The base wind (MIL wind) should be adjusted up or down 0.5mph for every 2,000ft of elevation.
So a .600 BC bullet at 6,000ft would be a 7, the same bullet at sea level would be a 5.5
The base wind (MIL wind) should be adjusted up or down 1mph for every 200fps of velocity difference from 2,800fps.
So a .600 BC bullet at 3,000fps would be a 7, at 2,600fps it would be a 5
I posted a huge word-salad of a post in the thread the guy was asking about how to call wind within 1mph.
The B.C method is something that I think Todd Hoddnet teaches...at least I have a Ranger buddy who told me about it...and then asked me if I was read on or some nonsense.?
I learned something similar back when I first started shooting.
The B.C method is something that I think Todd Hoddnet teaches...at least I have a Ranger buddy who told me about it...and then asked me if I was read on or some nonsense.?
I learned something similar back when I first started shooting.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
Todd started teaching it sometime around... 2005, I think?....somewhere around there. The gray beards I got it from, began teaching it in some of the advanced Army courses like SOTIC, somewhere around 1985. No one seems to know who discovered it, but that is the earliest time frame I have been able to pin down for it. Maybe someone will read this and have an earlier reference.
Last edited by a moderator:
Like everything shooting related, I would bet that it dates back to long range shooting at the turn of the century.
I have a databook that has "'British' Wind Table" which is the same idea but for 30 caliber and 15mph wind where yard lines correspond to minutes of angle. That's kind of where I started my approach from.
I also found a databook from the 1926 (I think) National Matches from the Long Range Portion that I gave a friend of mine who collects databooks that looks remarkably modern. I've also seen his databook collection, and if I recall one of his has a slide rule/wheel like device on the front of it for figuring wind.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
The concept of using angular measurements for wind has been around for ages, as you say. I was referring to the refinement of using MILS, and specifically the MIL wind value at 1000yds. I have an idea that it probably evolved when the Army and Marines started using the first mil-dot scopes like the Leupold M3A. Since the windage adjustments were in MOA, I suspect that the MIL method was modeled on the old British method to give the soldiers and Marines a faster way to hold for wind without doing any kind of MOA/MIL math conversion.
Last edited by a moderator:
I would have to consult with a friend of mine and look at old data pages of stuff that was made for the M21. I am pretty sure the military always used MOA as it's wind reference, as well as using target size.
Since MILs can equate to CM/100M kind of thing, the Europeans have probably been doing it unintentionally for the last 70 years.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
In the official literature and curriculum it did use MOA. When the MIL method was first being taught, it was an unofficial cheat method used for fast holds.
It was insider knowledge... but logic dictates that the MIL method would not have been taught at all until Mil-dot scopes entered service. So, whenever that was, that would be the earliest that it possibly could have existed.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
I use the same concept when calling in MOA. But I modify the British method from a 10 MOA wind at 1000yards to a 3 MOA wind at 1000yards. That way I just multiply the yard line by 0.3 to get my hold in MOA. The 10 MOA method allows for too much deviation at the closer ranges for my liking. The 3 MOA wind keeps the trajectory much closer to actual drift at all ranges.
The reason this MOA method makes sense is because 1 MIL at 1000 yards is 3.438 MOA. So...you can even use your same MIL wind and multiply the yard line by 0.3 (since 3.438 / 10 = .3438) and still be very close, or back off your MIL wind just a bit, say, from a 6mph to a 5mph and refine it down a little closer.
This especially comes into play when you are calling wind for multiple shooters using a mixture of MIL and MOA reticles. You can use the same G1 first number method to assign a base wind to each shooter, and just use a different multiple (0.3 vs 0.1) to give the wind call.
The reason this MOA method makes sense is because 1 MIL at 1000 yards is 3.438 MOA. So...you can even use your same MIL wind and multiply the yard line by 0.3 (since 3.438 / 10 = .3438) and still be very close, or back off your MIL wind just a bit, say, from a 6mph to a 5mph and refine it down a little closer.
This especially comes into play when you are calling wind for multiple shooters using a mixture of MIL and MOA reticles. You can use the same G1 first number method to assign a base wind to each shooter, and just use a different multiple (0.3 vs 0.1) to give the wind call.
I think the point of the podcast however, to simplify in to the “good enough camp” for speed and simple head-math.
The podcast was talking wind onstages, were if one is trying to manage a stage with multiple positions and a diverse FOF, in just a couple of minutes; simple & fast wins. The brain has a bunch of other stuff going on. What seems simple laying prone or in a web discussion, can quickly over complicate a task heavy process when under the tight clock.
The podcast was talking wind onstages, were if one is trying to manage a stage with multiple positions and a diverse FOF, in just a couple of minutes; simple & fast wins. The brain has a bunch of other stuff going on. What seems simple laying prone or in a web discussion, can quickly over complicate a task heavy process when under the tight clock.
Last edited:
I think my point is that back in the day we were still just converting mils to MOA in our heads. We are still teaching and thinking of wind in terms of MOA: but now we are just telling ourselves that 1 Mil = 3.5 MOA which is close enough.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
Exactly, so find your MIL wind, or your 3 MOA wind (they will be very close to one another), and multiply the yard line (divided by 100, so 500 yards would be 5.0) by either 0.1 for MILS or 0.3 for MOA....simple as that.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yep, that’s what most of us do that I know, but we’re using 5 or 6mph and also working an error budget by flash milling our targets.
Note that most these type matches are under <1300 and most are shooting over 2900fps
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
Right...so say I had a 6.5 Grendel at 2600fps, a 6.5 Creed at 2800fps and a 6.5x284 at 3000fps all on the line at the same time. They are all shooting the same 600+ BC bullet....and I'm calling wind for all of them at the same time.
I know that my baseline velocity for that 6MPH estimate is 2800fps, I also know the tweaks I need to make that I talked about earlier.
So I use 5mph for the Grendel, 6mph for the Creed, and 7mph for the 6.5x284.
I know my baseline altitude is 2000ft (28.0Hg), so if I am up at 6,000ft, evrybody gets an extra 1mph. If we are at sea level, everybody gets minused 0.5mph. These are things I can know before I even leave the house. These aren't things that have to be discovered in the field.
I can't upload from my phone, but here is a link to a photo of one of the old Parker Hale databooks.
Todd Hodnett didn't invent long range marksmanship in spite of gun magazines telling the contrary.
Todd Hodnett didn't invent long range marksmanship in spite of gun magazines telling the contrary.
For most of today’s shooters you don’t even need to understand the “BC” method. Once trued (proven) the solvers give the baseline that can be used to generate the mph hold per 1/10th for nearly any DA that Mike was talking about.. super super simple process.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
Nope, he did not. There is an extremely interesting book titled "Sniping in France", it is a first hand account of the British effort to develope thier sniper program during the first world war.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
I agree with you completely. If you are just concerned with yourself and a single load, you can use your ballistic solver and be as precise as you wish.
The BC method though, along with the tweaks if necessary, allows an instructor to simply ask the student, "What is the BC of your bullet, and how fast are you pushing it?" You should already know the altitude. From there you can put them on steel with a first round hit, if the shooter is good on the gun.
So, understanding the method also means that if you have multiple guns, in multiple calibers, you don't have to be a slave to your ballistic calculator. You can pick up a gun and some ammo and go anywhere and start putting rounds on steel with knowledge that is in your brain, instead of relying on a computer.
It's like Frank said in the podcast... there are trigger pullers, there are ballistic app experts, and then there are marksmen. This is marksmen level stuff. If a person is content to use an app and bang away at steel, none of this will hold any interest for them.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think I was not clear. What I am saying, is that today, you can simply look at a planned DA, drive and get a new 1/10 wind value. Then work it from there, just like the podcast.
I don’t use a calculator in the field.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
I think the confusion in what we are communicating lies in the name of the method. In the podcast Frank was calling it the BC method because that is where the concept comes from. It still holds true to a degree that is better than most people can call wind.
I believe what you are saying is that a shooter can use an app to find thier precise MIL wind for the area they will be in for that day, so don't need to settle for seemingly crude estimations. Is that correct?
I am good with the crude estimations-
The methods you are describing are solid, just trying to add, that new shooters can short cut it a bit by playing with a solver to find a 1/10th wind speed in any DA.
Communication is not my strongest asset.
https://m.ebay.co.uk/itm/SERVICE-RI...le-Experts-Target-Shooting-1938-/362326698104
Here's one from 1938, and it was on it's 14th edition.
Here's one from 1938, and it was on it's 14th edition.
Todd's only education was one week at Rifles Only with Jacob doing private instruction, after that week, (Which was by coincidence, the same time we dropped the Horus contract that he later he picked up) Prior he was a Cowboy action shooter and came to Rifles Only as "HandleBar Doc" vs being LR shooter, he came there for an education, as he had no formal foundation in any of this. A large percentage of what he says was taken from others.
The hidden word is, Todd never heard Someone's Else's good idea he didn't like for himself. Same when he claimed to have invented DA for shooting, he was brought to David Tubb's Place who was teaching DA to the SEAL only to take it and call it his own. Suppressing the truth is really his biggest talent beyond being a damn good salesman.
He invented nothing but if you read the contracts he gets from the military they are written as if nobody but him can teach it, as he owns this knowledge, and is the SME on Mils, Holding over, along with a host of other BS. In fact, he invented Kentucky windage back in TX, ask him.
We did not invent any of this, computers just help guys "Reinvent" these recent discoveries, you have to wonder how we managed to hit anything prior to these guys showing up 100 years late to the game.
If G7 was shot and modeled in 1940 why not use it until 2005+, cause G1 had other value and it worked.
For wind you have:
The British Method
Army Rule of 9s
USMC Long Hand Formula,
BC Method
A host of ways to skin this cat, it's 4, nobody invented 4 and there is a lot of ways to get to 4, claiming to hold ownership over the number 4 is stupid.
The hidden word is, Todd never heard Someone's Else's good idea he didn't like for himself. Same when he claimed to have invented DA for shooting, he was brought to David Tubb's Place who was teaching DA to the SEAL only to take it and call it his own. Suppressing the truth is really his biggest talent beyond being a damn good salesman.
He invented nothing but if you read the contracts he gets from the military they are written as if nobody but him can teach it, as he owns this knowledge, and is the SME on Mils, Holding over, along with a host of other BS. In fact, he invented Kentucky windage back in TX, ask him.
We did not invent any of this, computers just help guys "Reinvent" these recent discoveries, you have to wonder how we managed to hit anything prior to these guys showing up 100 years late to the game.
If G7 was shot and modeled in 1940 why not use it until 2005+, cause G1 had other value and it worked.
For wind you have:
The British Method
Army Rule of 9s
USMC Long Hand Formula,
BC Method
A host of ways to skin this cat, it's 4, nobody invented 4 and there is a lot of ways to get to 4, claiming to hold ownership over the number 4 is stupid.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
Hey Frank, do you happen to know when the first mildot scopes were issued to Army and Marine snipers?
Yes,
The USMC Developed the Unertl in 1978 with Mils and the Army followed suit in 1982 with Leupold for the M24
At that time the USMC used 6283 vs the Army who used 6400 based on the Lensatic compass back then, hence Army vs USMC dots, most thought it was the Oval vs Round but it was the actual Mil value
The USMC Developed the Unertl in 1978 with Mils and the Army followed suit in 1982 with Leupold for the M24
At that time the USMC used 6283 vs the Army who used 6400 based on the Lensatic compass back then, hence Army vs USMC dots, most thought it was the Oval vs Round but it was the actual Mil value
So what was hathcock using during Vietnam to make all those unreal shots? I read his book I don't recall him mentioning anything about mil dots. Actually how did he know the range to his targets ie the NV general that he shot from approx. 700 yards? Was he just estimating with football field method?
I just finished listening to frank and mikes podcast on wind episode 70. I must say I cant follow it. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed though. The examples given were all with a wind coming from 90 degrees. What if the wind is coming from 7:30 how do you do this calculation in your head. An example, I have a target at 700metres the wind is coming from 7:30 at 7mph how do you do this in your head without using ballistics calculator? I know my 10mph wind at 90 degrees and I could use a calculator to work this out but not in my head?
What am I missing?
What am I missing?
These are great adjustments. I am hoping you can answer a question after listening to the podcast.
The one thing that escaped me is that at certain distances, there was an offset added. Meaning instead of adding 0.1 mils, you jumped to 0.2 mils. The distance where that was applied seemed to be based on the cartridge. I may be wrong here but that is what it seemed like.
How do you know what distance you have to add an offset based on the cartridge your using?
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
Of course, I wasn't there in the room to look at thier inputs, but as I have said before, the baseline values that make this method work best are a bullet at 2800fps and 2000ft elevation.
What Frank and Mike were trying to do, is illustrate a method using the simplest inputs they could (the first number of the G1 BC) to get across the idea. I thought they did it extremely well. But if you are at a different altitude, or your bullet is 200fps faster or slower than 2800fps then there will need to be an adjustment.
To keep it simple, Frank and Mike were adjusting the hold. But they could have just as well, adjusted the Base Wind/Mil Wind to something other than a round number. So, with the inputs they were using, they might have been using a Base Wind of 6mph, because it was a 600+ BC bullet. It might actually have needed to be a 6.5mph due to a difference in altitude or speed from the baseline.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
To make it hard, the drift is reduced by the sine of the angle of the wind.
To make it easy, 45 degrees is 3/4 value and 22 degrees is 1/2 value.
Last edited by a moderator:
I get that but what was interesting was that they had a discontinuity. They used a BC of 5xx so it is a 5mph base wind. Therefore
0.5 mils @500 yards
0.6 mils @600 y
0.7 @700 y
0.8 @800y
0.9 @900y
But then it jumped to 1.1@1,000 yards versus 1.0@1,000 yards. Don't know why there is that extra 0.1mil added at 1,000 yards. Where is the crossover point where you deviate from adding 0.1 mil to the next hundred increment? Maybe it is an accumulation of errors that wouldn't be there if the adjustments you discussed are taken into affect. That is why I am asking the question
You have to have a basic foundation to begin with, like understanding the cosine of the wind angle
7:30 would be .75 or 75% of the full value wind as noted by the wind rose
7:30 would be .75 or 75% of the full value wind as noted by the wind rose
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
This isn't an exact method. This is down and dirty field figuring. It is very close though. And, it gets better with the higher BC bullet you use. If Frank and Mike had adjusted the base wind down to say a 4.8mph, then all would have lined up to 1000 yards, with what little deviation there was, being at the closer end of the scale where it matters least.
What you are doing is lining up two curves that are similar, but not exact. You are amortizing any error buy basically truing at the furthest distance (1000 yards). When you start going beyond that, the two curves start to diverge fairly quickly. That is why this method is seldom used past 1000 yards.
Last edited by a moderator:
Just remember it is a podcast and not a masterclass on calling the wind
We are rounding and simplifying to make the point, the main take away was when asking people what their actual method is, most say, Edge of the plate with our modern bullets vs an actual value.
We are trying to press the point, it does not have to be hard and with some basic understanding, you can begin to develop a better method and understanding using the available data out there like the G1 BC.
The question is, How do you calculate the wind in the field attempting that first round hit ? What is your process and do you even have one
We are rounding and simplifying to make the point, the main take away was when asking people what their actual method is, most say, Edge of the plate with our modern bullets vs an actual value.
We are trying to press the point, it does not have to be hard and with some basic understanding, you can begin to develop a better method and understanding using the available data out there like the G1 BC.
The question is, How do you calculate the wind in the field attempting that first round hit ? What is your process and do you even have one
My Ranger buddy was so enthusiastic about Accuracy First, LaRue and Tremor everything that I felt like I was going to a pitch for a multi-level marketing scheme.
Frank I have your wind diagram printed out and laminated for in the field And i use it. There is no way though I can do those calculations in my head. I need a calculator maybe your guys are just better at math. Like my example I would have to do .75 x full value wind at 700m. Then I would have to times that by .7 for the 7mph wind which I can't do in My head.
Frank can you and mike do a podcast about how you use mirage to call wind too by any chance?
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
You can do 7x7 = 49 right? ....So....0.07x7= 0.49...
or 0.7 x 0.7 = 0.49......round to 0.5
0.05 x 7 = 0.35...
or 0.5 x 0.7 = 0.35......and so on.
That is the beauty of decimals and the " base 10 " system.
Last edited by a moderator:
I was formally taught the BC method in school, and I can work it out slowly, but I'm just not good enough at math to do it quickly in my head. One thing Todd Hodnett is great at is fast math work in his head. Looks like Frank is as well, which doesn't surprise me. Weaponized math is why I have always been better with a pistol and a carbine. Harder to shoot them at a high level, but waaay simpler.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
It's just percentages and some basic multiplying, nothing unusual or strange about it.
People get intimidated because it's wind and bullets...but it's the same as dollars, dimes and pennies. When the wind is at an angle, that just means it goes on sale. %50 percent off.....%30 off......%10 off. We all do it everyday.
Yeah well, I went to a specialized math and science high school, many years ago. I assure you, I'm really good at being bad at math. Until you've seen a real expert, you'd be surprised. All my friends who are good at math just assume everyone is. not the case.
Yer I see how you do it but just like SLG i could only do this slowly in my head a calculator much faster for me.
Guys if you know tge full value is .5 and the wind is coming from and off direction, just hold .2 less or so.
Distance is supposed to offer you time and opportunity, so take your time and get the hit.
Distance is supposed to offer you time and opportunity, so take your time and get the hit.
That's what I do. I just can't do math fast in my head. Figuring a full value wind, in 5MPH increments is easy for me. Its the partial value's at more than the first 5mph increment that gets me.
We always taught beer math when I taught SDM. A 3/4 value 13mph wind can get rounded down to 12...and now it's not as hard to divide. A 15mph might go to 16mph...and 3/4 of 16 is now 4mph.
We never taught 9/10ths but as a frame of reference you can think of it as a full value wind and then take away 1/10th of a mil for every mil of your full value hold if you want to compute it.
Another thing I am going to try is making a wind gauge with for my elevation knob. Basically the idea is to be able to quickly assign a rough value to the wind based on what hold I am using. I took my elevation knob and marked mile per hour values for how much wind it'll take the bullet to move 1/2 mil.
For example, if I dial for an 825 yard shot, the number on the tape above is 3. That means 3mph will move the bullet .5 mils. In theory this should help me take better notes for future reference so that I can come off the line and say "I held for x mph wind" instead of "I held x mils at y distance"
Hey Frankie, all of a sudden everyone wants to talk about wind.
I really liked sharing "A" method with everyone to see what your methods are. Keep it going.
Interesting.
Just so you know, if you come up with something cool, Ima take that shit and pretend it's mine.
Much love.
I really liked sharing "A" method with everyone to see what your methods are. Keep it going.
Interesting.
Just so you know, if you come up with something cool, Ima take that shit and pretend it's mine.
Much love.
I just shaved my entire body and went shooting naked, my wind call is now within .5 mph? thx mike
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
Another point that no one has made yet....if you are using G7 BC's, just double your G7 BC and use THAT first number. G7 is roughly half the value of the G1. So, G7 of .280 x 2 = .560. You use 5mph as your base wind.
I know G7's aren't exactly half, but for this purpose, it works more than well enough.
I know G7's aren't exactly half, but for this purpose, it works more than well enough.
Similar threads
