## Having trouble logging into HideTV?

We’ve made updates to HideTV recently and because of this update, you’ll need to login to HideTV again. Check out the thread below for more info or login to HideTV!

VIEW THREAD LOGIN TO HIDETV

- Thread starter TheOtherAndrew
- Start date

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

(Idk why but I couldn't get the graphics to upload yesterday, tried again today and it was all easy peasy so here ya go...)

__Wind Calling - RAGS/10A__

*“But I have a Kestrel”*

A Kestrel is a very accurate spot wind speed measuring device; you open the impeller housing and point in the direction of the wind and you get a value (13.4mph say). However, it requires time, effort, and training to efficiently scroll through the options, input the correct values, and eventually spit out a wind solution. Sometimes the wind will have changed in this amount of time, sometimes your RO will inform you “you’ve run out of time, maggot!” - but it does work and when used correctly can be a useful tool.

What if you don’t have a Kestrel though? What if it ran out of battery? What if you were just using it to nail in that last step of your sweet new treehouse? Well then you need another method.

You can guesstimate what the actual wind speed is based on what you see around you. Some PRS shooters tie a piece of ribbon to their tripod and use that as an indicator. Some venues have a wind flag onsite that everyone can see. Mirage is another way of guessing (or confirming) a wind speed. There are charts out in the ether that tell you what to look for in your surroundings and then gives a corresponding wind speed based on those observations (for instance - if a nearby house was just lifted off the foundation and it was all pixelated and in black and white, you may be on the set of*‘The Wizard of Oz’*). There are a plethora of tools one can use to determine wind speed, but they all fall into one of two baskets; either you use your eyes/experience and guesstimate, or you use a purpose built instrument.

First I’ll start by saying that wind calling is an art not a science. There is no magic tool that will eliminate the usefulness of a well-trained, seasoned wind caller. That aside, we can use tools like Kestrels and wind roses to hone our own skills and get acceptable approximations of how the wind will move your bullet on a given shot. The following is a breakdown of how I was taught to interpret wind; after that I’ll describe what I believe to be a simpler and more accurate method - maybe old dogs don’t like new tricks, but I encourage all of you to give it a*shot*!

-------------------------------

**Determining a Wind Solution:**

__1). Distance to Target__

Using a ‘schmedium’-sized caliber (.24-.31 caliber), under 1000 yards, wind is rather linear in its deflection of a bullets path (past 1000yards wind becomes more exponential in nature due mainly to slower bullet speeds, so more care is necessary). Regardless of that, it is obvious that range to target plays a large role in what your total wind call ends up being. Because there are much fewer potential ‘answers’ than there are combinations of range/wind speed/etc., it’s normally only necessary to know distance to target to the nearest 100yd interval. In some circumstances 50yard intervals become necessary. When that is the case (inside 1000 yards) you can essentially just estimate half of the 100 yard step value because of the linear nature at those ranges. Since you need distance to target in order to determine your vertical solution (DOPE) you almost always will already know your range before even contemplating the corresponding wind solution.

__2). Wind Speed__

The next thing most people want to know before making a wind call is what the current wind speed is. Some manicured ranges have optimal configurations with a plethora of wind meters, but in most cases you will only be able to accurately measure the wind’s speed at your location. Wind is rarely a static beast - not only can it be gusting at your face while simultaneously being completely still 200yds downrange, it can also have vertical variations. Wind at the ground will almost always be slower than wind 30ft high, and that trend extends the higher off the ground you get - this can be especially confusing when you have a lot of trees around you and/or a valley between you and the target (shooting mountain top to mountain top). So in most cases <1000 yards your best bet is to get the best idea of the wind at your position. Additionally, the further out you go the lower your probability of a first-round, successful wind call becomes because of the inherently dynamic nature of wind (or pressure differentials). With training (and/or faster, higher BC bullets) you can stretch your abilities, but as a baseline I strive for >50% first round wind calls in winds up to 25mph and that puts my [acceptable range] inside 1000 yards.

__3). Wind Angle (relative to DOF)__

The most common system I know of for determining wind angle and its corresponding value (%) needed to accurately describe that wind as a standardized full value crosswind (FVCW) is currently done using a clock system for direction, and a quartering (X/4) system for calculating the corresponding FVCW values of a wind relative to your DOF. The direction of a given wind is hard to describe with less than 10 degrees of resolution - again relating back to wind being inherently dynamic in nature. Because the corresponding angular value (%) is based on a cosine function (not linear), accurately describing the angle of a wind is less important for winds coming from 2:00-4:00 or 8:00-10:00 (closer to green line below) than it is for 10:30-1:30 or 4:30-7:30 (closer to red line below). Fun fact a wind from 8 degrees (~10%) to 22 degrees (~40%) has an angular value range of ~30% and as wind speed rises and distance to target increases this discrepancy magnifies and (assuming everything else is perfect) can itself cause a complete miss, from a <15 degree shift in the angle of the wind and/or direction of fire (for a reference 30min on a clock = 15 degrees). This becomes more applicable with 2+ targets but still illustrates how easy it is to make an incorrect wind call from a minor error in the wrong place.

*[Wind Speed]*[Wind Angle] = FVCW*

__4). Gun Number__

The gun-MPH (G#) system is gaining popularity for converting that FVCW value into an actual angular value that you can measure and account for using your scope (wind call). The G# system helps the mental-flow between determining a crosswind speed and turning it into an actual wind call. A G# is specific to each [gun system] - it incorporates bullet weight, barrel length (MV), and BC. To find your G# you can get close by simply taking the first number of your G1 BC (.523 ~ 5mph gun, .697 is likely a 7mph gun but may act like a 8mph gun at higher DA or a 6mph gun if you have a short barrel at low DA). To get a more accurate G# you can take your favorite ballistic solver, enter in your [gun system] details, true the MV and BC to accurately reflect your bullets vertical path. Once trued simply enter a 90 degree wind at say 600yd and tune the wind speed until the windage output by your solver = 1/1000th the range entered (i.e. for 600yd 0.6mil, 400yd 0.4mil, etc.). The wind speed that gives you that relationship is your G# (note this is a fairly constant value and only extreme DA changes will alter that [gun system’s] G#). If you adjust the DA to the extremes you are likely to encounter you can calculate and make note of exactly when to expect a change in your G#. *****Another way to eliminate all deviations is to normalize your DA and use that DA value to determine G#; that way it’s never that far off, conversely it will rarely be exactly correct. But because wind calling is an art I’ve found that eliminating possible changes is more advantageous than increasing mathematical accuracy to that degree (a 0.6mil wind call instead of a 0.5 is well within my margin of error at least); if you want ultimate mathematical accuracy you will need to manage more moving parts, and once you go past 1000 yards it may be more advantageous to do things that way. For me, inside 1000 yards, I normalize my DA and stick with a single G#.

*[FVCW] @ [given range] = [Wind Solution] according to the above table*

Issues

However there is still some areas where the G# system could be improved upon for ‘on the firing line, under stress’ situations where you have several things to consider simultaneously -

For instance, if I have the wind described in 3). above (WS=19mph, @ 1:30) - what is the wind solution for a target 765 yards away? It requires a bit of mental math and guessing because of cosine angle, the fact that 14mph FVCW is not specifically enumerated in G# table, and the 0.7-0.8mil spread between brackets.

In your head this can make you second guess yourself, have to double check your math. If you write it down on a piece of paper in front of you that’s time elapsed which can lead to a rushed shot or a change in the wind perhaps. Now do that for multiple targets on a stage for instance (shown below).

**Don’t get me wrong it is a useful system; however it could be better….*

-------------------------------------

**RAGS/10A:**

R = Range to Target

A = Wind Angle

G = Gun MPH or G#

S = Wind Speed

[R]*[A]*[(S/G)] = Wind Solution

Range to target of 765yd can be rounded up to 800 or “8”

Wind speed of 19mph is then [inversely-rounded] down to 18mph for ease

Ex 1).

[(8*3/4)]*[(18/6)] = 6 * 3 = 1.8+mil

(since we know the answer will not be .18 given the inputs and won't be 18 ever really).

However this method also has some drawbacks - 2-3 multiplication functions of mental math mainly. Also the angle is a fraction (3/4) which means you have an added function of dividing by 4 always, inherently. So to reduce the number of functions necessary and streamline the mental math process for more complicated situations (multiple targets/time constraints), I changed the (X/4) ‘quartering’ system described (see 2) Into a ‘tenth’ or 10 angle system (hence 10A). This allows us to forget about any divisors and have a simpler, easier multiplication function to get a wind call quicker with more ease. The drawback is you must learn where the (X/10) values are located in a circle.

The good news though is you don’t need to know all 10 to be accurate. I picked 3 values (plus no value (0) and full value (10)) which represent a similar area as in the ‘quartering’ circle - 2, 5, and 8. With this you can actually be more accurate than the quartering system because you are allowed the freedom to add or subtract a tenth when deemed necessary for say a ‘strong 2 (3)’ or a ‘weak 8 (7)’ without increasing the number of functions necessary to convert to a wind call.

That same wind (19mph @ 1:30) for a 765yd shot looks like

[(8*8)*(18/6)] = 64*3 = ~60*3 = 1.8+mil

But you may think well what if I have a 7mph gun, or a wind speed not divisible by 6?

Ex 2).

A 525yd shot from between 12:30 and 1:00 (12:45), wind speed at 16mph with a 7mph G#

5*3*16/7

With this I could use inverted rounding and round the 16mph wind down to 14 to make it easily divisible while also rounding either the 5 to 6 or the 3 to 4 (up, the inverse of the initial rounding)

6*3*14/7 = 0.4

5*4*14/7 = 0.4

Or you can guesstimate the original

5*3*16/7 = 15*~2.3 = ~0.35 or 0.4

And if it were a 6mph gun

5*3*16/6 = 15*~2.6 = 0.39 or 0.4

(indecipherable differences in answers; lets magnify the wind speed and distance though and see how big the error gets from a 6mph gun to a 7mph gun and how important the distinction is inside 1000yd).

Ex 3).

Say we have a 840yd shot with wind speed of 23mph @ 2:00

G# = 7

8*8*23/7 = 2.1 actual

(here Id want to round speed down to 21; therefore would round yardage up to 9)

9*8*21/7 = 72*3 = ~2.2

G# = 6

8*8*23/6 = 2.5 actual

(here Id want to round speed up to 24; therefore would round yardage down to 8)

8*8*24/6 = 64*4 = 2.56 or 2.6

(but I may have chosen to round the angle down to 7 instead)

8*7*24/6 = 56*4 = 2.24 or 2.2

So depending on which number you decided to round you end up with a range of 0.4mRad. This shows the limits of the RAGS/10A method.

A close to FV wind above 20mph means you have much less rounding room. But honestly if I were shooting 800+yd with a 20+mph wind from any direction I wouldn’t expect to hit first round impacts because of the room for variability in actual wind felt by the bullet at that range with that magnitude.

RAGS/10A works, is more versatile and more accurate than using G# brackets and quicker than scrolling and selecting values with a Kestrel, but it can still be even easier/better.

Using the constants provided in the RAGS/10A wind rose (RAGS-Rose), you can simply glance at the wind speed and angle closest to ‘actual’ and multiply the constant by the known ‘range to target’ rounded to nearest 100yd and have a wind call instantly with 1 multiplication function. Its so quick you can easily make a wind bracket determination as well for lull and/or gust even with multiple targets.

“The way of the future!”

A Kestrel is a very accurate spot wind speed measuring device; you open the impeller housing and point in the direction of the wind and you get a value (13.4mph say). However, it requires time, effort, and training to efficiently scroll through the options, input the correct values, and eventually spit out a wind solution. Sometimes the wind will have changed in this amount of time, sometimes your RO will inform you “you’ve run out of time, maggot!” - but it does work and when used correctly can be a useful tool.

What if you don’t have a Kestrel though? What if it ran out of battery? What if you were just using it to nail in that last step of your sweet new treehouse? Well then you need another method.

You can guesstimate what the actual wind speed is based on what you see around you. Some PRS shooters tie a piece of ribbon to their tripod and use that as an indicator. Some venues have a wind flag onsite that everyone can see. Mirage is another way of guessing (or confirming) a wind speed. There are charts out in the ether that tell you what to look for in your surroundings and then gives a corresponding wind speed based on those observations (for instance - if a nearby house was just lifted off the foundation and it was all pixelated and in black and white, you may be on the set of

First I’ll start by saying that wind calling is an art not a science. There is no magic tool that will eliminate the usefulness of a well-trained, seasoned wind caller. That aside, we can use tools like Kestrels and wind roses to hone our own skills and get acceptable approximations of how the wind will move your bullet on a given shot. The following is a breakdown of how I was taught to interpret wind; after that I’ll describe what I believe to be a simpler and more accurate method - maybe old dogs don’t like new tricks, but I encourage all of you to give it a

-------------------------------

Using a ‘schmedium’-sized caliber (.24-.31 caliber), under 1000 yards, wind is rather linear in its deflection of a bullets path (past 1000yards wind becomes more exponential in nature due mainly to slower bullet speeds, so more care is necessary). Regardless of that, it is obvious that range to target plays a large role in what your total wind call ends up being. Because there are much fewer potential ‘answers’ than there are combinations of range/wind speed/etc., it’s normally only necessary to know distance to target to the nearest 100yd interval. In some circumstances 50yard intervals become necessary. When that is the case (inside 1000 yards) you can essentially just estimate half of the 100 yard step value because of the linear nature at those ranges. Since you need distance to target in order to determine your vertical solution (DOPE) you almost always will already know your range before even contemplating the corresponding wind solution.

The next thing most people want to know before making a wind call is what the current wind speed is. Some manicured ranges have optimal configurations with a plethora of wind meters, but in most cases you will only be able to accurately measure the wind’s speed at your location. Wind is rarely a static beast - not only can it be gusting at your face while simultaneously being completely still 200yds downrange, it can also have vertical variations. Wind at the ground will almost always be slower than wind 30ft high, and that trend extends the higher off the ground you get - this can be especially confusing when you have a lot of trees around you and/or a valley between you and the target (shooting mountain top to mountain top). So in most cases <1000 yards your best bet is to get the best idea of the wind at your position. Additionally, the further out you go the lower your probability of a first-round, successful wind call becomes because of the inherently dynamic nature of wind (or pressure differentials). With training (and/or faster, higher BC bullets) you can stretch your abilities, but as a baseline I strive for >50% first round wind calls in winds up to 25mph and that puts my [acceptable range] inside 1000 yards.

The most common system I know of for determining wind angle and its corresponding value (%) needed to accurately describe that wind as a standardized full value crosswind (FVCW) is currently done using a clock system for direction, and a quartering (X/4) system for calculating the corresponding FVCW values of a wind relative to your DOF. The direction of a given wind is hard to describe with less than 10 degrees of resolution - again relating back to wind being inherently dynamic in nature. Because the corresponding angular value (%) is based on a cosine function (not linear), accurately describing the angle of a wind is less important for winds coming from 2:00-4:00 or 8:00-10:00 (closer to green line below) than it is for 10:30-1:30 or 4:30-7:30 (closer to red line below). Fun fact a wind from 8 degrees (~10%) to 22 degrees (~40%) has an angular value range of ~30% and as wind speed rises and distance to target increases this discrepancy magnifies and (assuming everything else is perfect) can itself cause a complete miss, from a <15 degree shift in the angle of the wind and/or direction of fire (for a reference 30min on a clock = 15 degrees). This becomes more applicable with 2+ targets but still illustrates how easy it is to make an incorrect wind call from a minor error in the wrong place.

The gun-MPH (G#) system is gaining popularity for converting that FVCW value into an actual angular value that you can measure and account for using your scope (wind call). The G# system helps the mental-flow between determining a crosswind speed and turning it into an actual wind call. A G# is specific to each [gun system] - it incorporates bullet weight, barrel length (MV), and BC. To find your G# you can get close by simply taking the first number of your G1 BC (.523 ~ 5mph gun, .697 is likely a 7mph gun but may act like a 8mph gun at higher DA or a 6mph gun if you have a short barrel at low DA). To get a more accurate G# you can take your favorite ballistic solver, enter in your [gun system] details, true the MV and BC to accurately reflect your bullets vertical path. Once trued simply enter a 90 degree wind at say 600yd and tune the wind speed until the windage output by your solver = 1/1000th the range entered (i.e. for 600yd 0.6mil, 400yd 0.4mil, etc.). The wind speed that gives you that relationship is your G# (note this is a fairly constant value and only extreme DA changes will alter that [gun system’s] G#). If you adjust the DA to the extremes you are likely to encounter you can calculate and make note of exactly when to expect a change in your G#. *****Another way to eliminate all deviations is to normalize your DA and use that DA value to determine G#; that way it’s never that far off, conversely it will rarely be exactly correct. But because wind calling is an art I’ve found that eliminating possible changes is more advantageous than increasing mathematical accuracy to that degree (a 0.6mil wind call instead of a 0.5 is well within my margin of error at least); if you want ultimate mathematical accuracy you will need to manage more moving parts, and once you go past 1000 yards it may be more advantageous to do things that way. For me, inside 1000 yards, I normalize my DA and stick with a single G#.

6mph gun | Bracket 1 | Bracket 2 | Bracket 3 | Bracket 4 | Bracket 5 | |

Yardage | FVCW = 6 | 12mph | 18mph | 24mph | 30mph | Delta |

100 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.1 |

200 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 1 | 0.2 |

300 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 0.9 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 0.3 |

400 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 1.6 | 2 | 0.4 |

500 | 0.5 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 2.5 | 0.5 |

600 | 0.6 | 1.2 | 1.8 | 2.4 | 3 | 0.6 |

700 | 0.7 | 1.4 | 2.1 | 2.8 | 3.5 | 0.7 |

800 | 0.8 | 1.6 | 2.4 | 3.2 | 4 | 0.8 |

Issues

However there is still some areas where the G# system could be improved upon for ‘on the firing line, under stress’ situations where you have several things to consider simultaneously -

For instance, if I have the wind described in 3). above (WS=19mph, @ 1:30) - what is the wind solution for a target 765 yards away? It requires a bit of mental math and guessing because of cosine angle, the fact that 14mph FVCW is not specifically enumerated in G# table, and the 0.7-0.8mil spread between brackets.

In your head this can make you second guess yourself, have to double check your math. If you write it down on a piece of paper in front of you that’s time elapsed which can lead to a rushed shot or a change in the wind perhaps. Now do that for multiple targets on a stage for instance (shown below).

-------------------------------------

R = Range to Target

A = Wind Angle

G = Gun MPH or G#

S = Wind Speed

[R]*[A]*[(S/G)] = Wind Solution

Range to target of 765yd can be rounded up to 800 or “8”

Wind speed of 19mph is then [inversely-rounded] down to 18mph for ease

Ex 1).

[(8*3/4)]*[(18/6)] = 6 * 3 = 1.8+mil

(since we know the answer will not be .18 given the inputs and won't be 18 ever really).

However this method also has some drawbacks - 2-3 multiplication functions of mental math mainly. Also the angle is a fraction (3/4) which means you have an added function of dividing by 4 always, inherently. So to reduce the number of functions necessary and streamline the mental math process for more complicated situations (multiple targets/time constraints), I changed the (X/4) ‘quartering’ system described (see 2) Into a ‘tenth’ or 10 angle system (hence 10A). This allows us to forget about any divisors and have a simpler, easier multiplication function to get a wind call quicker with more ease. The drawback is you must learn where the (X/10) values are located in a circle.

The good news though is you don’t need to know all 10 to be accurate. I picked 3 values (plus no value (0) and full value (10)) which represent a similar area as in the ‘quartering’ circle - 2, 5, and 8. With this you can actually be more accurate than the quartering system because you are allowed the freedom to add or subtract a tenth when deemed necessary for say a ‘strong 2 (3)’ or a ‘weak 8 (7)’ without increasing the number of functions necessary to convert to a wind call.

That same wind (19mph @ 1:30) for a 765yd shot looks like

[(8*8)*(18/6)] = 64*3 = ~60*3 = 1.8+mil

But you may think well what if I have a 7mph gun, or a wind speed not divisible by 6?

Ex 2).

A 525yd shot from between 12:30 and 1:00 (12:45), wind speed at 16mph with a 7mph G#

5*3*16/7

With this I could use inverted rounding and round the 16mph wind down to 14 to make it easily divisible while also rounding either the 5 to 6 or the 3 to 4 (up, the inverse of the initial rounding)

6*3*14/7 = 0.4

5*4*14/7 = 0.4

Or you can guesstimate the original

5*3*16/7 = 15*~2.3 = ~0.35 or 0.4

And if it were a 6mph gun

5*3*16/6 = 15*~2.6 = 0.39 or 0.4

(indecipherable differences in answers; lets magnify the wind speed and distance though and see how big the error gets from a 6mph gun to a 7mph gun and how important the distinction is inside 1000yd).

Ex 3).

Say we have a 840yd shot with wind speed of 23mph @ 2:00

G# = 7

8*8*23/7 = 2.1 actual

(here Id want to round speed down to 21; therefore would round yardage up to 9)

9*8*21/7 = 72*3 = ~2.2

G# = 6

8*8*23/6 = 2.5 actual

(here Id want to round speed up to 24; therefore would round yardage down to 8)

8*8*24/6 = 64*4 = 2.56 or 2.6

(but I may have chosen to round the angle down to 7 instead)

8*7*24/6 = 56*4 = 2.24 or 2.2

So depending on which number you decided to round you end up with a range of 0.4mRad. This shows the limits of the RAGS/10A method.

A close to FV wind above 20mph means you have much less rounding room. But honestly if I were shooting 800+yd with a 20+mph wind from any direction I wouldn’t expect to hit first round impacts because of the room for variability in actual wind felt by the bullet at that range with that magnitude.

RAGS/10A works, is more versatile and more accurate than using G# brackets and quicker than scrolling and selecting values with a Kestrel, but it can still be even easier/better.

Using the constants provided in the RAGS/10A wind rose (RAGS-Rose), you can simply glance at the wind speed and angle closest to ‘actual’ and multiply the constant by the known ‘range to target’ rounded to nearest 100yd and have a wind call instantly with 1 multiplication function. Its so quick you can easily make a wind bracket determination as well for lull and/or gust even with multiple targets.

“The way of the future!”

I thought abut how to introduce other gun# values:

1: you can keep the wind mph #s and change all the values - pain

2: you can keep all the constants constant and just change the wind speed numbers since G# is incorporated in RAGS

(these 'steps' represent useful deviations - that translate to answers >0.29mil in change. More like 0.3-4 or ~1MOA (<1.6MOA) - because original assumption was based on 1-1.5MOA gun system(bullet, powder, barrel, action, scope, person) accuracy. A slower G# equates to a gun that requires more resolution to pull of the same amount of precision/accuracy and vice versa.

4mph gun - start at 4 increase in increments of 2

4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18

5mph gun - starts at 5, increases in increments of 2.5

5, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, 20, 23

6mph - start at 6 increase in increments of 3

6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24

7mph - start at 7 increase in increments of 3.5

7, 11, 14, 18, 21, 25, 28

8mph - start at 8 increase in increments of 4

8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32

*So to make the same RAGS Rose for other Gun#'s simply substitute in the corresponding values above - keep the rest. I haven't double checked this yet but I dont see why this would be wrong. Enlighten me if you find an error!

1: you can keep the wind mph #s and change all the values - pain

2: you can keep all the constants constant and just change the wind speed numbers since G# is incorporated in RAGS

(these 'steps' represent useful deviations - that translate to answers >0.29mil in change. More like 0.3-4 or ~1MOA (<1.6MOA) - because original assumption was based on 1-1.5MOA gun system(bullet, powder, barrel, action, scope, person) accuracy. A slower G# equates to a gun that requires more resolution to pull of the same amount of precision/accuracy and vice versa.

4mph gun - start at 4 increase in increments of 2

4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18

5mph gun - starts at 5, increases in increments of 2.5

5, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, 20, 23

6mph - start at 6 increase in increments of 3

6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24

7mph - start at 7 increase in increments of 3.5

7, 11, 14, 18, 21, 25, 28

8mph - start at 8 increase in increments of 4

8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32

*So to make the same RAGS Rose for other Gun#'s simply substitute in the corresponding values above - keep the rest. I haven't double checked this yet but I dont see why this would be wrong. Enlighten me if you find an error!

Those wind rose charts are great for illustration purposes, but I have never felt they are fast enough to be used in practical terms.

I have always preferred something that is more easily visualized like this.

Its simple, each of the vertical black lines represents 25 percent of the full value... If you correlate that to the direction of the wind you can visualize what angle of wind represents what percentage of the whole.

This is where people with a clock system tend to go wrong. They assume 1:30 is half way to 3 o'clock, but in wind 1 o'clock is half way there as shown by the green line. It's actually counter productive to associate the angle to time except for communication purposes.

What is also self evident by such an illustration is the need to increase focus on the direction of a head or tail wind, and focus more on speed for a cross wind. This is because a wind can swing all the way from 1 o'clock to 5 o'clock directionally and only represents a 50 percent hold over change, where a 12 to 1 o'clock wind represents the same change in wind.

I have always preferred something that is more easily visualized like this.

Its simple, each of the vertical black lines represents 25 percent of the full value... If you correlate that to the direction of the wind you can visualize what angle of wind represents what percentage of the whole.

This is where people with a clock system tend to go wrong. They assume 1:30 is half way to 3 o'clock, but in wind 1 o'clock is half way there as shown by the green line. It's actually counter productive to associate the angle to time except for communication purposes.

What is also self evident by such an illustration is the need to increase focus on the direction of a head or tail wind, and focus more on speed for a cross wind. This is because a wind can swing all the way from 1 o'clock to 5 o'clock directionally and only represents a 50 percent hold over change, where a 12 to 1 o'clock wind represents the same change in wind.

Hey, appreciate the comment. I felt the same way about common wind roses. You get a % of true wind speed with them, but you still need to convert that to a mRad answer.

The one I did above has mRad values in it that you just multiply by your [distance to target/100]. For now I just have it printed out on my armband thing and its the easiest way Ive found to get pretty accurate first round wind calls without thinking much at all. But thats me, others have had a lot of repetition with other systems and they work just as effectively I suppose.

If you look, the tenth angle values I use are 2, 5, 8 (20%, 50%, 80%) so fairly close to what you showed in quarters; if you want more precision you can add or subtract 1 from each main angle (2 becomes 3 or 1, 5 becomes 4 or 6, 8 becomes 7 or 9) based on what you think at the time.

I tried it out yesterday and once before with anywhere from 7-18mph winds coming from a 2-4 @ 1000yd or a 7-9 @ 3,4,5,600yd - within 0.1mil inside 700yd and within 0.2mil at 1000yd, first rounds. Impressed myself honestly.

The one I did above has mRad values in it that you just multiply by your [distance to target/100]. For now I just have it printed out on my armband thing and its the easiest way Ive found to get pretty accurate first round wind calls without thinking much at all. But thats me, others have had a lot of repetition with other systems and they work just as effectively I suppose.

If you look, the tenth angle values I use are 2, 5, 8 (20%, 50%, 80%) so fairly close to what you showed in quarters; if you want more precision you can add or subtract 1 from each main angle (2 becomes 3 or 1, 5 becomes 4 or 6, 8 becomes 7 or 9) based on what you think at the time.

I tried it out yesterday and once before with anywhere from 7-18mph winds coming from a 2-4 @ 1000yd or a 7-9 @ 3,4,5,600yd - within 0.1mil inside 700yd and within 0.2mil at 1000yd, first rounds. Impressed myself honestly.

Quadrant 1 of the circle shows each [10A] value (0-10) and their corresponding value in degrees.

Quadrant 2 and 3 of the circle shows only applicable [10A] values (2, 5, 8) - these are the values that correspond to all of the numbers inside of each circle; an angle of 20%, 50%, and 80% of a full crosswind.

Quadrant 4 of the circle shows [10A] values in relation to where half-hour values would be in a given 90degree area as well as the generally agreed upon quartering value (it is showing the relationship between the [old school quartering/clock] version and my [10A] version

If you dont want the extra confusion Id recommend only using the 2, 5, 8 values like the left side of the circle. But when I made the diagram I anticipated people would be wondering "where is everything in relation to the clock system, the quartering value system, degrees in general." That is why they are included in different ways on the right side of circle - but they are not necessary to the system.

------------------------------------

There are no updates, to make the same 10A Rose useful for a 4, 5, 7, 8 mph gun # simply alter the main wind speed values emanating from the 0deg column. instead of 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24 etc (for a 6mph gun# - original) make those values:

4mph gun - start at 4 increase in increments of 2

4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18

5mph gun - starts at 5, increases in increments of 2.5

5, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, 20, 23

6mph - start at 6 increase in increments of 3

6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24

7mph - start at 7 increase in increments of 3.5

7, 11, 14, 18, 21, 25, 28

8mph - start at 8 increase in increments of 4

8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32

-----------------------------------

*When I get around to it I will make a simpler version; hopefully should post it by this Friday. Ill try to include a few illustrative examples as well to make things clearer.

Quadrant 2 and 3 of the circle shows only applicable [10A] values (2, 5, 8) - these are the values that correspond to all of the numbers inside of each circle; an angle of 20%, 50%, and 80% of a full crosswind.

Quadrant 4 of the circle shows [10A] values in relation to where half-hour values would be in a given 90degree area as well as the generally agreed upon quartering value (it is showing the relationship between the [old school quartering/clock] version and my [10A] version

If you dont want the extra confusion Id recommend only using the 2, 5, 8 values like the left side of the circle. But when I made the diagram I anticipated people would be wondering "where is everything in relation to the clock system, the quartering value system, degrees in general." That is why they are included in different ways on the right side of circle - but they are not necessary to the system.

------------------------------------

There are no updates, to make the same 10A Rose useful for a 4, 5, 7, 8 mph gun # simply alter the main wind speed values emanating from the 0deg column. instead of 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24 etc (for a 6mph gun# - original) make those values:

4mph gun - start at 4 increase in increments of 2

4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18

5mph gun - starts at 5, increases in increments of 2.5

5, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, 20, 23

6mph - start at 6 increase in increments of 3

6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24

7mph - start at 7 increase in increments of 3.5

7, 11, 14, 18, 21, 25, 28

8mph - start at 8 increase in increments of 4

8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32

-----------------------------------

*When I get around to it I will make a simpler version; hopefully should post it by this Friday. Ill try to include a few illustrative examples as well to make things clearer.

*'Wind Sections' are on the bottom in bold, use the table and your gun systems G# to write in what wind speeds to add in each section to correspond to your specific gun system in the top, open portion.

All gold/yellow lines correspond to the limits of wind angle values of 2, 5, 8. The rest of the right side info outside of the circle is only for understanding the relationship to other systems (degrees, quartering/clock systems like is used on a Kestrel)

Well surprise surprise this works better than I expected too!

**Have been trying to find a place that'll make stickers if anybody knows a place let me know. **

But I also found an even simpler way to present all the information so it is a bit less cluttered and easier to calculate an EFFECTIVE FIRST ROUND WIND CALL in ~5 seconds (to 800yd). So multiple targets at multiple directions - no prahBlem-man! It works to 1200 pretty linearly too, it just gets more artsy as the number of variables pile up past 800y and you end up having to do more mental math if you want first round hits (>50%) past 800 (wind zones, terrain, vertical zones, etc.).

Last piece of the overall puzzle is to come up with a more effective way to manage the data for ease of access (under stress or in stressful environments) and ease of use by under-trained individuals. That was one of the original tenets was to be able to teach another person on this system with minimal effort once the initial information was explained.

I appreciate all the love and hope to ratchet all of this stuff (4C + 10A) up to be available to others (in its final format); probably in my less busy wintery seasons.

But I also found an even simpler way to present all the information so it is a bit less cluttered and easier to calculate an EFFECTIVE FIRST ROUND WIND CALL in ~5 seconds (to 800yd). So multiple targets at multiple directions - no prahBlem-man! It works to 1200 pretty linearly too, it just gets more artsy as the number of variables pile up past 800y and you end up having to do more mental math if you want first round hits (>50%) past 800 (wind zones, terrain, vertical zones, etc.).

Last piece of the overall puzzle is to come up with a more effective way to manage the data for ease of access (under stress or in stressful environments) and ease of use by under-trained individuals. That was one of the original tenets was to be able to teach another person on this system with minimal effort once the initial information was explained.

I appreciate all the love and hope to ratchet all of this stuff (4C + 10A) up to be available to others (in its final format); probably in my less busy wintery seasons.

New simplified version; inside 800yd its pretty effective for me. Past 700yd it become more of a starting point, if your wind is 13+ the variations from wind ground level and max ord is likely enough to change the wind call by more than the <1.5MOA(0.5mRad) plate youre shooting at - if its a 2+MOA plate then again - good starting point that you can then refine shot by shot.

Quick no thinking really tool.... I printed one off and have in my armband and just point arrow at the target and then visualize the wind direction, (I know the speed to within 3mph from Kestrel pre match, mid match, etc.) so you can also get an idea for what to do if theres a gust or lull between making the call and breaking the shot.

Copyrights reserved to whatever extent possible under law! but I dont think anyone will be making a fortune off this selling stickers or patches - but if you do Ill be waiting for my cut!

LMK if you think this version (simpler but more coarse) is better than first version (more refined but also more mental math).

Quick no thinking really tool.... I printed one off and have in my armband and just point arrow at the target and then visualize the wind direction, (I know the speed to within 3mph from Kestrel pre match, mid match, etc.) so you can also get an idea for what to do if theres a gust or lull between making the call and breaking the shot.

Copyrights reserved to whatever extent possible under law! but I dont think anyone will be making a fortune off this selling stickers or patches - but if you do Ill be waiting for my cut!

LMK if you think this version (simpler but more coarse) is better than first version (more refined but also more mental math).

Can you explain how to use it step by step in a simple way?

Thank you

Thank you

1) Find avg wind speed (Kestrel or guess) - update every couple hours based on need/feel

2) Know distance to target.

3) Orient the arrow of the illustration/attachment in**my last post (#11)** toward target and estimate which angle section (direction (2, 5, 8)) wind is blowing.

4) Based on known wind speed and your specific G# - That will give you a [letter]

5) then read associated table/matrix applying [letter] and known distance to target - and apply the corresponding wind solution as seen fit

**(see attachment on **__post (#11)__ and that is the answer)

The attachments from post (#1) are raw numbers that still need to be multiplied by [distance/100] - the 2 (posts 1 & 11) are the same thing just in 2 different ways of reading it - I think the one in post #11 is quicker, #1 perhaps more precise. The reason I like #11 is there is zero second guessing yourself of "did I do the math correctly?" the answer is on the graphic - now based on your own experience you can tweak that 'starting point' for the given target.

Im newer to shooting and dont have windage tables engrained in my head so yes other ways work, for people with prior knowledge. For beginners new to shooting I think #11 is easier then G# tables even and definitely easier than wind roses with compensated FV wind, but thats my opinion.

2) Know distance to target.

3) Orient the arrow of the illustration/attachment in

4) Based on known wind speed and your specific G# - That will give you a [letter]

5) then read associated table/matrix applying [letter] and known distance to target - and apply the corresponding wind solution as seen fit

The attachments from post (#1) are raw numbers that still need to be multiplied by [distance/100] - the 2 (posts 1 & 11) are the same thing just in 2 different ways of reading it - I think the one in post #11 is quicker, #1 perhaps more precise. The reason I like #11 is there is zero second guessing yourself of "did I do the math correctly?" the answer is on the graphic - now based on your own experience you can tweak that 'starting point' for the given target.

Im newer to shooting and dont have windage tables engrained in my head so yes other ways work, for people with prior knowledge. For beginners new to shooting I think #11 is easier then G# tables even and definitely easier than wind roses with compensated FV wind, but thats my opinion.

When my data says I should change my G# in my calculations. Given that theres inherent error to all of this that is virtually impossible to remove, this table on the far right is the general pattern I see.

If I hat that wind system that has multiple sensors (Calypso) run together (cant recall name "Wind-Shot" maybe?) I would set the sensors at 300, 600 and 1000yd (since yo can still use Kestrel at shooter) to get the most useful inputs.

If I hat that wind system that has multiple sensors (Calypso) run together (cant recall name "Wind-Shot" maybe?) I would set the sensors at 300, 600 and 1000yd (since yo can still use Kestrel at shooter) to get the most useful inputs.

Kestrel (0yd)

S1 (300yd)

S2 (600yd)

S3 (1000yd)

-------

So if I was shooting a 400yd shot and sensors read:

K-8

S1-15

S2-18

S3-9

Id use nG# and [(8+15)/2] for inputs S/G

-------

1200yd shots with same readings

Use nG# (-1) and [(8+15+18+9)/4]

------

750yd shot with same readings

Use nG# and [(8+15+18)/3]

-----

Essentially the G# does not need to be averaged because it was already done in the original calculation of varying G#/when to change it.

However the wind speed value used should be averaged over the distance the bullet travels (more obvious) using applicable sensors for that shot.

Real point is dont average the G#, rest is intuitive enough.

*Anybody actually have one of those wind-shot systems to put to use/test?

S1 (300yd)

S2 (600yd)

S3 (1000yd)

-------

So if I was shooting a 400yd shot and sensors read:

K-8

S1-15

S2-18

S3-9

Id use nG# and [(8+15)/2] for inputs S/G

-------

1200yd shots with same readings

Use nG# (-1) and [(8+15+18+9)/4]

------

750yd shot with same readings

Use nG# and [(8+15+18)/3]

-----

Essentially the G# does not need to be averaged because it was already done in the original calculation of varying G#/when to change it.

However the wind speed value used should be averaged over the distance the bullet travels (more obvious) using applicable sensors for that shot.

Real point is dont average the G#, rest is intuitive enough.

*Anybody actually have one of those wind-shot systems to put to use/test?

I went back and looked at some high wind shooting Ive done at 700-1300yd. There seems to be a divergence in answers around the 800yd mark, becoming significant enough to miss at 1000yd+. In light of this reality vs theory observation I decided to add more info to the formula. - Max Ordinance factor (MOf).

Idea is simple, we all know there are wind zones as you get further off the ground, how much on average I haven't found much info on. But was listening to a podcast on RO Tower where Ketrel may read 8 at bottom, 11mph at 10ft, and 13mph at top of tower which Im assuming is ~20-25ft (3 story).

So with the averaged ranges where G# is observed to change from above [<350yd (n+1), 4-800yd n), 850-1200yd (n-1)] I added ~ max ord values for each of 3 sections. Then I weighted the mph values per approx TOF to more closely reflect true path of bullet and came up with a 'fudge factor' related to max order hence "MOf."

Same old formula (R*A*S/G) but now weighted for wind zones by simply multiplying RAGS answer by MOf (which can really just be backwards calculated by an individual at the range observing the deviation in set wind solution and true solution. Table looks as follows

So trend is showing divergence past 800yd roughly speaking, Id say best results will come from testing wind call estimation vs actual result at 1000-1100yd (granted there is more room for unknown variability in downrange wind at these distances, if its a field with no real terrain features to speak of (like where I got my data on this) then I believe it is still viable (numbers match at least...).

An attempt to simplify the system is to remove the change in gun number (just use normalized G#) and offset by not weighting the MOf and using actual MO wind speed as measured at shooter (to get your 'fudge factor;' would not need to know this later on as you'd fine tune your own MOf during 'training days' and only need to multiply normal RAGS wind call by MOf if shooting at short/medium/long ranges as defined above.

Idea is simple, we all know there are wind zones as you get further off the ground, how much on average I haven't found much info on. But was listening to a podcast on RO Tower where Ketrel may read 8 at bottom, 11mph at 10ft, and 13mph at top of tower which Im assuming is ~20-25ft (3 story).

So with the averaged ranges where G# is observed to change from above [<350yd (n+1), 4-800yd n), 850-1200yd (n-1)] I added ~ max ord values for each of 3 sections. Then I weighted the mph values per approx TOF to more closely reflect true path of bullet and came up with a 'fudge factor' related to max order hence "MOf."

Same old formula (R*A*S/G) but now weighted for wind zones by simply multiplying RAGS answer by MOf (which can really just be backwards calculated by an individual at the range observing the deviation in set wind solution and true solution. Table looks as follows

So trend is showing divergence past 800yd roughly speaking, Id say best results will come from testing wind call estimation vs actual result at 1000-1100yd (granted there is more room for unknown variability in downrange wind at these distances, if its a field with no real terrain features to speak of (like where I got my data on this) then I believe it is still viable (numbers match at least...).

An attempt to simplify the system is to remove the change in gun number (just use normalized G#) and offset by not weighting the MOf and using actual MO wind speed as measured at shooter (to get your 'fudge factor;' would not need to know this later on as you'd fine tune your own MOf during 'training days' and only need to multiply normal RAGS wind call by MOf if shooting at short/medium/long ranges as defined above.

- Replies
- 13

- Views
- 677

Advanced Marksmanship Target Wind Value

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 169

Advanced Marksmanship What wind values to put in a written Chart

- Replies
- 17

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 579