• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Advanced Marksmanship Wind read- More important at gun or target?

Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Reinman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LL -
is there a way of sorting a thread so as to block the posts of selected individuals so I can more quickly glean the usable information without having to wade through the ego driven drivel of glaucoma commandoes?

My .02 = ALL wind matters, but those I know who are good at adjusting for it have developed an intuition from practice. That intuition began with learning to read wind at the shooter, and if necessary, temper that reading with their knowledge of how downrange terrain features add or subtract from it.
</div></div>

yes, go to their profile, click 'ignore this user'
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ch'e</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Reinman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LL -
<span style="color: #FF0000">is there a way of sorting a thread so as to block the posts of selected individuals so I can more quickly glean the usable information without having to wade through the ego driven drivel of glaucoma commandoe</span>s?

My .02 = ALL wind matters, but those I know who are good at adjusting for it have developed an intuition from practice. That intuition began with learning to read wind at the shooter, and if necessary, temper that reading with their knowledge of how downrange terrain features add or subtract from it.
</div></div>Pretty obvious who you are refering to here and there is no need to take that attitude toward another member arguing his position even if you dont agree with him -we all like to go to bed feeling ok not negated and worthless as one would feel with your statement ! </div></div>

+1 on that. Totally uncalled for. Not a big fan of censorship and I appreciate reading a wide variety of differing viewpoints here. It's totally up to me to filter and decide what works best for me after reading those viewpoints. Sniper's Hide would be the poorer without a wide range of differing opinions.
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have never once said it is was the only way, however anyone who thinks they are judging the wind downrange without acknowledging the wind at the gun is lying, to everyone including themselves.

I have said, all things have to be considered and I clearly stated when shooting at distance I account for the Max Ord and wind Mid Range based on the reading taken at the shooter. I account for it all...

</div></div>

Here's the fallacy with your strategy: basing it on the reading taken at the shooter assumes that what you know for sure at the shooter will give you an idea for what's going on at mid range. That's a guess. Maybe a guess is all there is; but, if I can read the effect of wind at mid range I will put it into my formula without consideration for wind at the firing point. For example, if wind appears to be within the range of 8 to 12 MPH at mid range I average to 10 MPH, work the formula in my head, and favor accordingly. It has gotten me good results on the range and in the field.

One more thing, I hope that when you remark that shooting on the range is different than shooting in the field you're not attempting to imply that shooting in the field is more difficult than shooting on the range. A manicured range has few indicators on it other than wind flags to aid a shooter to properly estimate wind. And, flags, as you have alluded to, are not reliable. Realizing that mirage may not, for one reason or another, present itself, a shooter may indeed need to guess or trust the wind at the shooter. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. In EIC matches with no sighter shots the 300 yard rapid prone stage can be particularly difficult. I've seen all sorts of strategies used to get that wind right. I find reading wind for 1000 yard matches much easier than reading wind for good hits at 300 yards.
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Reinman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LL -
is there a way of sorting a thread so as to block the posts of selected individuals so I can more quickly glean the usable information without having to wade through the ego driven drivel of glaucoma commandoes?


</div></div>

Glaucoma commandos? What is the intent of that comment? I've heard of keyboard commandos and Internet commandos but do not understand the connection of glaucoma to commandos. I don't think I ever implied that I was a commando so I just don't get the joke.

Glaucoma is an eye disease. Essentially, it's pressure from fluid in the eyeball which cuts off nourishment to the eye, gradually causing blindness. I can no longer see anything other than silhouettes from my left eye. The glaucoma was diagnosed too late. At any rate, I think my best shooting may be behind me now; however, I am attempting to develop motor memory from my right shoulder; and, I'm having some success with it. Although I have not reached all of my marksmanship goals, fortunately, I had the opportunity to reach a few of my goals before glaucoma became part of my life.
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Reinman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LL -
is there a way of sorting a thread so as to block the posts of selected individuals so I can more quickly glean the usable information without having to wade through the ego driven drivel of glaucoma commandoes? </div></div>

Feel free to put me on the list, I'm just an old "has been commando"

Yeah I got my opinions too, may not be right but they are mine, so I suggest you put me on your ignor list.
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

I'm probably pretty well past my 'best by date', too.
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?


<span style="font-style: italic">[/quote] Not a big fan of censorship and I appreciate reading a wide variety of differing viewpoints here. It's totally up to me to filter and decide what works best for me after reading those viewpoints. Sniper's Hide would be the poorer without a wide range of differing opinions. [/quote]</span>

To be clear, I am not suggesting the site censor anyone. I appreciate all opinions shared for the enlightenment of all. Heaven knows there may be those who want me censored some day. My comment was compelled by my perception that Sterling's posts seem to be more motivated from the perspective of proving his opinions right, to the point of arguing with extreme examples, faulty logic and condesending tone, rather than promoting a dialogue of deeper thought.

In any event, my post was uncalled for and served only to perpetuate what I just critisized, so I appologize to all of you and to Sterling.

Carry on.
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

Good man Reinman !

Stirling , the thing about the square range especially if its the one you are always shooting is that it doest vary much and you get to know its Idiosyncrasy's -if the wind is from the west you know what to look for at mid range possibly but if you were in an unknown area of mountain or even farm land with a few wobbles in the land scape chances are you would not get your first round hit and have to walk it in .I am sure in the field you would feel direction and strength at shooter first ,then maybe look at your midrange indicators and then make that decision on dope -not just try to check the middle zone out and shoot
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

I don't see value in criticising differing, even widely disparate, views here at The 'Hide. My own views carry the benefit of many such dialogues, but I also reduce and amplify that all when I generate my own posts. The climate of dialogue and discourse here has evolved into a good and rare artifact.

Somebody told me recently that there is no good way to do a bad thing. Right. I consider that a platitude, and a lifetime has taught me that platitudes almost always miss the mark, even if only by a small degress. Not that they are wrong, but that they oversimplify. They cultivate belief in absolutes in a world where absolutes are mostly pleasing fictions.

Even so, I think it might be hard to do a right thing the wrong way; in that many paths can arrive at the same goal. The more ways I get to see, the better I understand the overall process.

As for Frank and Charles (and others), I greatly cherish their reparte. It is invigorating to see peers grasp and grapple, coming to grips with an issue to depths that might not otherwise get plumbed. I think everyone involved benefits. If best taste gets exceeded, I'm inclined to let it pass; there's a lot more going on here than the mere massaging of egos.

Regarding oversimplification. Simplification if at the heart of most things I do. At my age, time's too valuable to waste, so simplification has a value.

But in this case, terms like more important, most important do not render a realistic approach.

This is a subject that doe not lend itself to simplification because in it there are no insignificant factors, and besides, what data we can capture to crunch is nowhere near being all the pertinent data. The more we input, the longer it takes, and the less relevent the result becomes by the time we have something to apply. Time, tides, and the winds wait for no man, nor for his data entry process.

This is not solely the realm if computation. It is also the realm of experience and judgement. If this renders more than one specific solution, hey, that's not so bad after all, is it?

Greg
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ch'e</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Good man Reinman !

Stirling , the thing about the square range especially if its the one you are always shooting is that it doest vary much and you get to know its Idiosyncrasy's -if the wind is from the west you know what to look for at mid range possibly but if you were in an unknown area of mountain or even farm land with a few wobbles in the land scape chances are you would not get your first round hit and have to walk it in .I am sure in the field you would feel direction and strength at shooter first ,then maybe look at your midrange indicators and then make that decision on dope -not just try to check the middle zone out and shoot </div></div>

You're shaping your argument from a lot of assumptions which may not always be true. That's the problem here. It's why wind reading is in the techniques category and not in the fundamentals category. It's also why any opinion on this matter about where the wind should first be read can not be accepted as fact. Bottom-line, for anything to be factual it must always be true. As I said before, if what you are doing about wind is getting you the results you're looking for why do it any other way; however, if you are not getting the results you'd like, why not try another technique, if that's possible. When I first got into shooting I started with the wind at my firing point, sometimes it worked, sometimes it did not. Now, I have other techniques, including reading wind at mid range, in my tool box which have proven in some cases to better serve the need.
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

Greg hit the nail on the head, what ever you do, do it. If you try to estimate wind at varing points, plug them into your computer and try to get an average of the inputs, the wind changed.

Square range, shooting in the mountains, prairie, over water,or jungles, wind does wierd things, that we can all agree on.

But as you crank into the wind, regardless where, you have a horizontal arc where the rifle is aimed to the right or left of the target to compensate for the wind.

You have an angle where the bullet is traveling "upwind" then it's pushed where you have the bullet heading at 90* to the wind, then turns "down wind" toward the target.

So we basicly have three points, up wind, through the wind, and then down wind. The through the wind part would be full value, the upwind & downwind have partial values, not quite 1/2 or even 1/4 values but still partial values.

Or at least this is the way it was explained to me and that's why I tend to adjust for mid range wind (the full value part). Maybe this picture shows it better then I can explain it.

wind%20direction.jpg
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

That's a terrible diagram. It encourages the notion that the bullet is 'pushed' by the wind when that is not what happens. The enlarged bullet looks to be tracking inline with its line of departure, that is incorrect. The line of sight indicated is clearly wrong, unless windage is dialed on and in that case the bore line should also be present.

When fired, the bullet turns into the relative wind. Drag causes drift, which is why high BC bullets are less affected by wind. For the diagram above to be correct, the line of bore would be the line the bullet is shown to be on now. The bullet path would be a decreasing radius curve to the left of the bore line, with the bullet nose pointing slightly towards the bore line. The distance between the sight line as shown and the bore line would be the wind correction value.
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

As far as mid range wind having the most effect, that is also factually incorrect. The most effect on path is from winds near the gun. That is because the error is angular in nature, and is not self correcting as the projectile continues downrange.

Let's imagine a long wall along side the range with a movable 100 yard gap. If we place the gap starting at the muzzle and apply a wind force that will drift the bullet 1" in that 100 yards, the bullet will end up about 10" from center at 1000 yards. If we move the gap to 900-1000 yards, and apply the same wind force, you will only get slightly more than 1" of drift, due to velocity decay. If the gap is placed at 450-550, you will have just a little more than 5" of drift at 1000, again due to velocity decay, as that force will move the bullet a little more than 1" in 100 yards now.

So, while it would be correct to say a mid range wind will move the bullet a little further over the same distance than the same wind at the muzzle, the net effect of that mid range wind is little more than half the net effect of the near wind.

As far as the preceeding example, 3 10 MPH wind bands in 300 yards, 3 MOA is not a solution for anything I tried. I can get to 2.3 for some .223 loads, most everything else I tried is in the 1.7 - 2 area. So, if 3 MOA worked, and it's clear that it did, the conditions were actually something else.

The solution is to average the winds to get the total crosswind component over the range of the shot. How you do that is up to you. The sequence is of little importance really, near-far-mid, mid-near-far, far-mid-near, what's the differance if they all get the same total value?

I look at the whole of the situation, looking at the terrain like a riverbed, directing the air like water. Find the predominate wind direction, look at mirage and any/all other indicators of speed and direction over the line of the shot, make a call and commit to it. Run the bolt and fix it RIGHT DAMN NOW if need be.

If it were easy, everybody would be doing it.
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I started with the wind at my firing point, sometimes it worked, sometimes it did not. Now, I have other techniques, including reading wind at mid range, in my tool box which have proven in some cases to better serve the need. </div></div>

Some would call it a "lack of experience" as to why it sometime worked and sometime didn't... when you first start shooting in the wind you don't jump out of the gate an expert wind caller, that takes time. clearly...

Still, admitting you built your personal database with wind at the shooter, proves the point, and that with experience your ability to call the wind heads downrange, the more experience the further downrange that experience gets.

Taking a new shooter straight to the advanced side of things without building a solid foundation is one of the main points being made... telling a new / inexperienced shooter, "read it mid range" without them having a foundation of reading it anywhere is part of the problem. Sure you can give them a couple of cases of ammo, sent them off to their local range to "read the wind" mid range by shooting all the ammo works, absolutely it does, it's how many have learned to read the wind, but that doesn't make them successful anywhere but their local range. All they have learned is what they can expect there, at the local range. Some of the nuggets might translate over, but move them to a new location and soon they will learn they are a one range pony.
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

PS,

Cory I tried that line of explanation around Page 1, the whole TOF thing, Angles, Dumb Bullet that once is blown off course stays off course.

Didn't work...
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

Comming in late, I just went back a few pages. Maybe if someone else says it...?
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Comming in late, I just went back a few pages. Maybe if someone else says it...?</div></div>

Like the AMU ?

If not it doesn't count...
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Comming in late, I just went back a few pages. Maybe if someone else says it...? </div></div>

I'll say it....wind at the rifle holds more merit than wind downrange I can't feel.
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">PS,

Cory I tried that line of explanation around Page 1, the whole TOF thing, Angles, Dumb Bullet that once is blown off course stays off course.

Didn't work... </div></div>

The bullet is exposed to mid range wind longer than at the shooter.
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">PS,

Cory I tried that line of explanation around Page 1, the whole TOF thing, Angles, Dumb Bullet that once is blown off course stays off course.

Didn't work... </div></div>

The bullet is exposed to mid range wind more than at the shooter.</div></div>

So on a 1000 yard shot, everything past 101 and before 999 yards is now considered mid range ? Is that the logic ...
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As far as mid range wind having the most effect, that is also factually incorrect. The most effect on path is from winds near the gun. That is because the error is angular in nature, and is not self correcting as the projectile continues downrange.

Let's imagine a long wall along side the range with a movable 100 yard gap. If we place the gap starting at the muzzle and apply a wind force that will drift the bullet 1" in that 100 yards, the bullet will end up about 10" from center at 1000 yards. If we move the gap to 900-1000 yards, and apply the same wind force, you will only get slightly more than 1" of drift, due to velocity decay. If the gap is placed at 450-550, you will have just a little more than 5" of drift at 1000, again due to velocity decay, as that force will move the bullet a little more than 1" in 100 yards now.

So, while it would be correct to say a mid range wind will move the bullet a little further over the same distance than the same wind at the muzzle, the net effect of that mid range wind is little more than half the net effect of the near wind.

As far as the preceeding example, 3 10 MPH wind bands in 300 yards, 3 MOA is not a solution for anything I tried. I can get to 2.3 for some .223 loads, most everything else I tried is in the 1.7 - 2 area. So, if 3 MOA worked, and it's clear that it did, the conditions were actually something else.

The solution is to average the winds to get the total crosswind component over the range of the shot. How you do that is up to you. The sequence is of little importance really, near-far-mid, mid-near-far, far-mid-near, what's the differance if they all get the same total value?

I look at the whole of the situation, looking at the terrain like a riverbed, directing the air like water. Find the predominate wind direction, look at mirage and any/all other indicators of speed and direction over the line of the shot, make a call and commit to it. Run the bolt and fix it RIGHT DAMN NOW if need be.

If it were easy, everybody would be doing it.</div></div> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As far as mid range wind having the most effect, that is also factually incorrect. </div></div>

The USAMU says wind has the greatest effect at mid range, I think I'll trust them on that one.
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As far as mid range wind having the most effect, that is also factually incorrect. The most effect on path is from winds near the gun. That is because the error is angular in nature, and is not self correcting as the projectile continues downrange.

Let's imagine a long wall along side the range with a movable 100 yard gap. If we place the gap starting at the muzzle and apply a wind force that will drift the bullet 1" in that 100 yards, the bullet will end up about 10" from center at 1000 yards. If we move the gap to 900-1000 yards, and apply the same wind force, you will only get slightly more than 1" of drift, due to velocity decay. If the gap is placed at 450-550, you will have just a little more than 5" of drift at 1000, again due to velocity decay, as that force will move the bullet a little more than 1" in 100 yards now.

So, while it would be correct to say a mid range wind will move the bullet a little further over the same distance than the same wind at the muzzle, the net effect of that mid range wind is little more than half the net effect of the near wind.

As far as the preceeding example, 3 10 MPH wind bands in 300 yards, 3 MOA is not a solution for anything I tried. I can get to 2.3 for some .223 loads, most everything else I tried is in the 1.7 - 2 area. So, if 3 MOA worked, and it's clear that it did, the conditions were actually something else.

The solution is to average the winds to get the total crosswind component over the range of the shot. How you do that is up to you. The sequence is of little importance really, near-far-mid, mid-near-far, far-mid-near, what's the differance if they all get the same total value?

I look at the whole of the situation, looking at the terrain like a riverbed, directing the air like water. Find the predominate wind direction, look at mirage and any/all other indicators of speed and direction over the line of the shot, make a call and commit to it. Run the bolt and fix it RIGHT DAMN NOW if need be.

If it were easy, everybody would be doing it.</div></div> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As far as mid range wind having the most effect, that is also factually incorrect. </div></div>

The USAMU says wind has the greatest effect at mid range, i think I'll trust them on that one. </div></div>


Unfortunately, it doesn't. It is a mathematical and physical <span style="font-style: italic">certainty</span> that it doesn't. However, you are of course, free to believe that if you wish.
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

As they say, it's not so much what you know, it's what you know that just ain't so.
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

It seems to me if one can tell its 10 mph at mid range and it is at shooter it wouldnt make any difference to your dope and if that what Stirling is doing it works - it just appears to me to be a harder way of doing things and certainly not one you should introduce newer shooters to .
As far as believing the millitary doctine 100% correct -I think history is littered with dead allied bodies following that way of thinking .
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

http://www.odcmp.com/Competitions/USAMU/Techniques.htm

Question 6, from Chris

This answer from the USAMU indicates they think that the winds near the target have the most effect, at least 600 yards and beyond. That's also wrong, but at least they qualified the statement with 'seems'.

On the bright side, they do acknowledge that the wind has an effect at all ranges. The fact that they 'look' at mid range, does not seem to me that they believe that it has the most effect, but it's where they start their read, which is not a bad plan.
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.odcmp.com/Competitions/USAMU/Techniques.htm

Question 6, from Chris

This answer from the USAMU indicates they think that the winds near the target have the most effect, at least 600 yards and beyond. That's also wrong, but at least they qualified the statement with 'seems'.

On the bright side, they do acknowledge that the wind has an effect at all ranges. The fact that they 'look' at mid range, does not seem to me that they believe that it has the most effect, but it's where they start their read, which is not a bad plan.</div></div>

Breaking news: CoryT declares USAMU "wrong".
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

So the writer of the USAMU was a world shooting champ?The guys trains shooters for a job so I reacon he has a clue
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Anthony box</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What i hate to read on this discussion, is all the "i'll believe what the USAMU says" garbage. people who blindly follow doctrine are often held back by this sole decision. writing a book or doctrine on how to shoot does not mean you inherently know more than everyone else on the subject... it should be a starting point for the unknowing, not the be all and end all of your shooting education.

and if the Army or any branch of the military knew everything about shooting , why would they sub contract to civilian or ex military instructors?

the fact that Sterling you are unable to listen to reason , and keep going back to the USAMU stuff, says it all really.</div></div>

Well Anthony you are right it does say it all. When folks win as many individual and team Shooting Contests as have the USAMU's members reasonable people will tend to listen to what they have to say about matters regarding good shooting. But Anthony of course you can pick your own experts or none at all. I don't care what you do. I don't care if you learn how to shoot or don't learn how to shoot. What I'm getting at here is that I just don't care what you think.Now, I do care about opinions here, just not yours. Perhaps it was your use of the word "garbage" that made me not care, I don't really know; but, I'm tired Anthony just plain tired of folks like you who do not have it appears the capacity to think critically or stimulate what has been so far and for the most part a very entertaining discussion.
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ch'e</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So the writer of the USAMU was a world shooting champ?The guys trains shooters for a job so I reacon he has a clue</div></div>

They're not writers. They're world renowned champion shooters who, through their words on the matter, explain how they do it for those interested in such matters. Most of what I've read from the AMU on marksmanship in general breaks marksmanship down to the principles and everything else that supports those principles.
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.odcmp.com/Competitions/USAMU/Techniques.htm

Question 6, from Chris

This answer from the USAMU indicates they think that the winds near the target have the most effect, at least 600 yards and beyond. That's also wrong, but at least they qualified the statement with 'seems'.

On the bright side, they do acknowledge that the wind has an effect at all ranges. The fact that they 'look' at mid range, does not seem to me that they believe that it has the most effect, but it's where they start their read, which is not a bad plan. </div></div>

Look at the simple logic and physics of the matter.

10 mph full value crosswind.
Muzzle velocity 2700 fps
800 meters < 1100 fps

Naturally the wind closer to the target will move the projectile further off course than it will at the muzzle.

Dumbest kid in the 6th grade should be able to figure that out.
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

Sterling, you also think they are wrong, since you say mid-range wind has the most effect and the USAMU answer from that link says it's the far wind (at least past 600 yards). As no one at the USAMU has claimed to be a god, and therefore infallable, I presume they are capable of error.

KS, yes a far band of wind will move the bullet more inches in the same distance than a band at the muzzle. However, since it's an angular error, when the bullet arrives at the target the near error will have multiplied. Please refer to my wall example on the prior page.

In any event, this is not about shooting. This is about physics. It is fact, not opinion. It is a mathematical certainty. In other breaking news, the Earth is not flat and it's more than 6000 years old.
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

It's clear there are mechanics here and cheerleaders,

Cheerleaders dont' have to know much, they just have to pick a side and repeat the tried and true cheers. In the service there was always people who put in their "time in service" but few would follow them regardless of the numbers. Just hanging around a long time doesn't make you any smarter, just less prone to dissension.

If the answer is always, well they do it and they can't be wrong, well, go team go.

Unfortunately for them, their reality doesn't hold up to Sterling's illusion.

KS,

Bryan Litz has a section in his book regarding the numbers for near and far winds, the far winds, basically it is a TOF thing, and since most bullets we shoot today have good BCs and stay super sonic beyond 1000 yards, the drift in the last 1/3 is much less than you think. Time just isn't on it's side. Personally I wish he spent more time on wind but I get it... his conclusion is: <span style="text-decoration: underline">Be Flexible </span> for every one example there is an equal and opposite example, but it is hard to deny, TOF, and the angular deviation as they matter. Wind gradients are what make mid range a player, but not necessarily the answer, because it is impossible to verify with any certainty, and watching the mirage on the ground ignores the wind gradient which has the most effect. Mechanics know this... which is why they establish scientific baselines, as opposed to relying on 100% SWAG.
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Let's imagine a long wall along side the range with a movable 100 yard gap. If we place the gap starting at the muzzle and apply a wind force that will drift the bullet 1" in that 100 yards, the bullet will end up about 10" from center at 1000 yards. If we move the gap to 900-1000 yards, and apply the same wind force, you will only get slightly more than 1" of drift, due to velocity decay. If the gap is placed at 450-550, you will have just a little more than 5" of drift at 1000, again due to velocity decay, as that force will move the bullet a little more than 1" in 100 yards now. </div></div>


Just goes to show ..... Break it down to something that a layman will see in simple terms. I understood it before , but this makes it easy to see in plain sight.

Or.... Snap a line with a chalk line . Do it 2degrees off from the start . How far are you off at your finish point. Then snap it straight for the first 50% , then move the remainder off by 2 degrees.

At least I think I understand it
crazy.gif
I never got a toilet bowl in my rifle quals ....LOL.

Greg
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pyrofx</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Let's imagine a long wall along side the range with a movable 100 yard gap. If we place the gap starting at the muzzle and apply a wind force that will drift the bullet 1" in that 100 yards, the bullet will end up about 10" from center at 1000 yards. If we move the gap to 900-1000 yards, and apply the same wind force, you will only get slightly more than 1" of drift, due to velocity decay. If the gap is placed at 450-550, you will have just a little more than 5" of drift at 1000, again due to velocity decay, as that force will move the bullet a little more than 1" in 100 yards now. </div></div>


Just goes to show ..... Break it down to something that a layman will see in simple terms. I understood it before , but this makes it easy to see in plain sight.

Or.... Snap a line with a chalk line . Do it 2degrees off from the start . How far are you off at your finish point. Then snap it straight for the first 50% , then move the remainder off by 2 degrees.

At least I think I understand it
crazy.gif
I never got a toilet bowl in my rifle quals ....LOL.

Greg</div></div>

No matter where a shooter reads the wind, any windage adjustment to the sight will create an angle between line of bore and line of sight.
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

Einstein used to say, if you can't explain it to an 8 year old, you don't really understand it yourself.

Note that nowhere did I suggest that a mid range wind read was a bad idea, or in any way 'wrong' in and of itself. It's just not the whole story, it can't be used to the exclusion of all else and it does not, for a fact, have the most effect on the bullet path from a technical standpoint.

The example is clearly not a real world illustration. It is mearly a way to understand the effects of deflection.

A savvy shooter will take the whole of the trajectory path into account when making a wind call. The near wind can be physically measured. Wind at the target area can be estimated, often fairly well. I had a timer added into FFS to measure drift of particulates (smoke, dust from a shot) and use the reticle to get a very precise measure of the crosswind at that point. Mid range is the most difficult point to get a precise read. While mirage may be present, it is not normally on the bullet path but well underneath it. This requires the observer to account for the gradient increase and angle off after any ground estimation.

For example, I had a private class last weekend, and during the class we took some shots with the 338 at 1427 yards. Out of the three shooters, we got two first round hits and one hit on the second shot. .4 mil left on the knob to get to zero, then a hold of 1.5 to 2.1 mil left for wind got the first round hit on the cold bore shot.

Of course, the clients first question is "How do you SEE that?"

It's over 35 years of experiance on ranges all over the world. It's understanding air is a fluid, and reading the terrain as much as seeing the mirage, grass, trees, etc. It's being familiar with the patterns of flow at that range. It's taking the four different directions and speeds that I see over the course of the shot and making a crosswind value out of it and making a call, then commiting to it. Add in a bit of good fortune, and Bingo!, we get a hit.

The more I practice, the luckier I get! What I DON'T do, is look at mid range with the spotter and use that alone to make a call. Given a short range ( say under 500y) and a flat square level rifle range environment, it's probably usable, since it's pretty hard to get actual severe changes in speed and direction over enough range to get you into a lot of trouble when you only have 500 yards of flat surface. Extend the range much or get into some rough terrain and you have a problem that a mid range read in isolation is not going to solve.

This is why we work as teams in the PR7 class, shooter and spotter. You learn as much spotting as shooting. The mechanics of firing the shot are not too complicated, certainly less difficult than playing a piano or driving a car. The art of reading wind takes much more time and experiance to develop than basic marksmanship skills. I can't tell you what you see when you look downrange, you need to look, make a call, have a shot fired and see the result, then recalibrate so your call matches the actual results. Lather, rinse, repeat. Do that enough in enough different places and you can get pretty good. If you ever get to where you are never wrong, please let me know, as I'll be happy to pay for lessons.
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In other breaking news, the Earth is not flat and it's more than 6000 years old. </div></div>

Till you put him on the Santa Maria and run it aground off the East coast of the continent...the world is flat, and he's packing a life raft so he's ready when you get to the edge.
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

Sterling Shooter , tell me please do you take any notice of the wind at the shooter position or are you straight to mid range -ie do you factor for the shooter position or just let the mid range wind dictate your whole reading and caculation ?
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="color: #FF0000">That's a terrible diagram. It encourages the notion that the bullet is 'pushed' by the wind when that is not what happens.</span> The enlarged bullet looks to be tracking inline with its line of departure, that is incorrect. The line of sight indicated is clearly wrong, unless windage is dialed on and in that case the bore line should also be present.

When fired, the bullet turns into the relative wind. Drag causes drift, which is why high BC bullets are less affected by wind. For the diagram above to be correct, the line of bore would be the line the bullet is shown to be on now. The bullet path would be a decreasing radius curve to the left of the bore line, with the bullet nose pointing slightly towards the bore line. The distance between the sight line as shown and the bore line would be the wind correction value. </div></div> I have always wondered about this statement and I know it is accepted and surely correct -"BUT"why isnt the bullet pushed by the wind -when I am walking on a real windy day I am pushed sideways so why cant a bullet be pushed also ??
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

Think about it. Given the speed of the bullet, the shock wave and boundary layer of air around it, which you can see as trace, how could air molecules 'push' on the side of the bullet? The answer is, they can't.

For a simplistic illustration of the actual effect, you'll need some running water, like a small stream, and a toy boat.

Give the boat a shove across the current. Note it instantly starts to weathervane and point into the current. The shove propels it forward, but drag pulls it down stream, just like a bullet. With no motor or sail to counteract drag, you need to aim up current to shove the boat and hit a particular point. The faster you shove, the less it points into the current and the less curved is the resulting path. The more streamlind the boat, the less drag and the less the current pulls it down stream.
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sterling, you also think they are wrong, since you say mid-range wind has the most effect and the USAMU answer from that link says it's the far wind (at least past 600 yards). As no one at the USAMU has claimed to be a god, and therefore infallable, I presume they are capable of error.

KS, yes a far band of wind will move the bullet more inches in the same distance than a band at the muzzle. However, since it's an angular error, when the bullet arrives at the target the near error will have multiplied. Please refer to my wall example on the prior page.

In any event, this is not about shooting. This is about physics. It is fact, not opinion. It is a mathematical certainty. In other breaking news, the Earth is not flat and it's more than 6000 years old.</div></div>

I wonder how it is if, according to you, the USAMU is doing it wrong they can still win doing it wrong in NRA LR where wind is the thing, separating those who can from those who can't. Fact is their wins are evidence that they indeed are doing it right. Where is your evidence that what you are doing is right? And, BTW, I did not misstate the USAMU; therefore, I am not wrong. Clearly, the response you got from them indicates their read closer to the target at LR is even a greater disparity to your statement about beginning by reading wind at the shooter. One thing for sure, if what you do works and others are doing it wrong you might want to celebrate your knowledge and skill in some division of NRA LR competition. You'd certainly tear it up and everybody would want you to show them how to do it. At the least, it would be a good environment to test your theory.
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

Is there any way someone can generate a graph showing the bullets down range position and its relative lateral position with respect to the line of sight between the rifle and target given say, a 20 mph full value crosswind?

I don't mean using the moa/mil correction from a ballistics calculator, but using the strict values based on muzzle velocity and velocity degradation over the shot range.

Case in point, just for kicks and giggles, hypothetically, time of flight = 2 seconds. After the first .1 seconds how far down range is the projectile and how far off course is it? Plot it. Now, after the next .1 seconds how far is the projectile down range and what is the DELTA lateral change beteen this observation and the previous? Plot it . . . and so forth.

I think this will give a clearer picture of what's happening.
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

It is very easy to calculate the wind influence in each segment with any ballistic program:

1- calculate your normal trajectory (say, up to 1000 yds) in 100 yds increments.
2- now you have velocity and wind deflection at each 100 yds interval.
3- to isolate the wind effect of the first 100 yds, imput the velocity at 100 yds (from step 1) as muzzle velocity, and find the wind drift at 900 yds.
4- the difference between wind drift at 1000 yds (from step 1), and drift at 900 yds (from step 3) is the effect of the wind at 1000 yds from in the first 100 yds segment.

You can do this calculation for all segments, and find the net effect at 1000 yds of each segment. It is basic physics, and 100% valid. All the advanced programs use similar calculations for their wind zones.

I've posted these calculations many times before, with complete examples, but it seems the old posts gets lost often.
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

Tiro,
Not looking at it as a distance/drift ratio, but a time of flight/drift ratio.

It takes the bullet longer to travel from 900 meters to 1000 meters than it does from 800 meters to 900 meters. Need to look at it in that respect.
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Killer Spade 13</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tiro,
Not looking at it as a distance/drift ratio, but a time of flight/drift ratio.

It takes the bullet longer to travel from 900 meters to 1000 meters than it does from 800 meters to 900 meters. Need to look at it in that respect.</div></div>

As I understand it Killer Spade 13 is right about this; and, thus, it explains why the cause/effect for the "begin with wind at the shooter" theory is not always true.
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

Sterling, you need to read more carefully what I'm saying. I never said that their TECHNIQUE of beginning a wind call at mid range was wrong. You can begin wherever you like, but you must account for the whole tracks wind value in some fashion, even if that is sub concious after many repititions. What's wrong is stating that the mid range wind value has the most effect on the bullet path. That is simply factually incorrect, but it has nothing to do with METHODOLOGY, or even success in making a call.

I'm quite sure that no winning shooters take a mid range wind value and uses that to the exclusion of all other indicators. That would be folly, and we all know it.

Learning to read wind is an example of a feedback loop. You look at what's out there, make a call and take a shot. Based on the results of that shot, you alter the read. Positive results lead to using the same call when you see the same conditions. Negative results lead to changing the read in some fashion, looking for other indicators, etc.

So, in this case, someone decides to give more weight to a mid range value that THEY HAVE GUESSED. The call works, reinforcing that decision and causing them to make it again. Note that they don't have any actual physical, factual value for the wind conditions, only a guesstimate that came up with a positive result. There are any number of actual conditions that would get the same result (net crosswind value) that differ from the estimate. Success however, causes them to use the same system again. Eventually, they get calibrated, if you will, to seeing the conditions and mentally using that system to make the call.

Now, at this point, when asked, they will tell you that the mid range value needs to be given more weight, so clearly that has more effect than the near or far winds. This is reverse logic, but it is not factually correct, even though it results in a good call. They have simply learned to adjust the value they see to create a positive result.

In your prior example of the 10,10,10 L/R/L wind over 300 yards, your solution that resulted in success reinforced the read you made. In point of fact, given those actual values, it is NOT correct for any 5.56 or 7.62 load I run. That does NOT make your call incorrect, clearly it was right. However, the method that DERIVED the value is in fact in error, since if those were truely the actual conditions you should have had a different answer. The actual conditions matched the value you dialed on, therefore you are left with believing that the read was correct.
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Killer Spade 13</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tiro,
Not looking at it as a distance/drift ratio, but a time of flight/drift ratio.

It takes the bullet longer to travel from 900 meters to 1000 meters than it does from 800 meters to 900 meters. Need to look at it in that respect. </div></div>

Killer, you cannot make a formula directly related to TOF.

What is important is <span style="font-style: italic">lag time</span>, and this varies with each BC and velocity combination.

As pointed above, it is easy to calculate the influence in wind drift of any sector. And of course the wind closer to the shooter is by far the most influential. I will let you do the math.

The tricky part is that often the wind is not constant (in velocity and direction) across the bullet path, if you shoot prone over flat terrain the wind at max ordinate is going to be stronger than closer to the ground, there may be terrain induced and hidden drafts, etc. THAT'S why wind reading is an art.
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

The bullet maybe moving "slower" but it is still supersonic in most cases, at least to 1000 yards. Especially with modern bullets. Not to mention the BC has a factor.

Bryan Litz discussed this very factor in his book in the section of wind drift. And clearly explains that the drift at the final 1/3 does not have enough time to drift farther than the drift from the gun.

It is not slow enough to be affected more at the last 1/3 over the first 1/3 its not going THAT SLOW... by comparison.

The ONLY reason Mid Range gets a mention at all is because of the wind gradient, which shows an increase in velocity as you move away from the ground. I have explained this in detail, not all bullets are effected at Mid Range the same. A 308 that needs 11.5 Mils to 1000 yards is going to be affected more than a 7WSM that only needs 7.2 Mils to reach 1000 yards... so the mid range effect is greatly reduced because it does not have the TOF or distance above the LOS.

Use a better bullet, and mid range becomes a non-issue really fast when compared with what you shot in 1978. Heck you can use a 178gr Hornady Superformance round and change the dynamic over a 168gr SMK, same caliber different results because of BC, MV, etc.
 
Re: Wind read- More important at gun or target?

And of course max ordinate (and wind velocity) at "mid range" shooting at 500 yds with a 308 is very different than shooting at 1000 yds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Theoverwatch
Advanced Marksmanship Target Wind Value
Replies
5
Views
517
JustSendit
JustSendit
L
PRS Talk Quick compound/complex wind calls
Replies
8
Views
619
3guns2hands
3
Milirad
Rifle Scopes Burris Eliminator 6 Accuracy Range Test Review
Replies
5
Views
225
Milirad
Milirad
DangerRanger
Short barrel wind deflection
Replies
9
Views
469
DangerRanger
DangerRanger
Airik Farley
Tips For Getting Rounds on Target With A New Rifle / Shooter
Replies
7
Views
415
BOI1947
B
Top Bottom
Back