Ultimate lazy shooter's firing solution

[Litehiker]

OK, technology is bearing down on us at an ever increasing pace.

We now have the new "Bluetooth Smart" in a Kestrel weather meter/ballistic computer, the "Sportsman". Yeah it doesn't use AB ballistics tables and won't solve past 800 yards and only pairs with the Bushnell Elite CONX LRF monocular but just wait.

So think about this:

Burris "Eliminator IV" LRF riflescope (it would be like the III but with Bluetooth Smart) and a Kestrel/AB 4500 with Bluetooth Smart.

You get wind and target angle from the Kestrel/AB. It calculates everything else including your mood and sends it to the "Eliminator IV" scope which also compensates for shot angle. The appropriate dot is illuminated BUT with the amazing "Eliminator IV" ALL the scope dots can be illuminated so now it not only lights up for vertical hold but for windage as well.

Ahhhhh!, SO easy! (And I'm so smart it sometimes makes me sick. ;o)

 

[LouBoyd]

OK, technology is bearing down on us at an ever increasing pace.

We now have the new "Bluetooth Smart" in a Kestrel weather meter/ballistic computer, the "Sportsman". Yeah it doesn't use AB ballistics tables and won't solve past 800 yards and only pairs with the Bushnell Elite CONX LRF monocular but just wait.

So think about this:

Burris "Eliminator IV" LRF riflescope (it would be like the III but with Bluetooth Smart) and a Kestrel/AB 4500 with Bluetooth Smart.

You get wind and target angle from the Kestrel/AB. It calculates everything else including your mood and sends it to the "Eliminator IV" scope which also compensates for shot angle. The appropriate dot is illuminated BUT with the amazing "Eliminator IV" ALL the scope dots can be illuminated so now it not only lights up for vertical hold but for windage as well.

Ahhhhh!, SO easy! (And I'm so smart it sometimes makes me sick. ;o)

The setup described above knows nothing about downrange crosswinds. That is the largest source of shooting error which cannot be measured and computed with commercially affordable instruments.

There is still no practical alternative to learning the shooting skill of visual downrange wind estimation aka "doping wind". That requires considerable practice. and cannot be learned by a lazy shooter.

Downrange crosswinds can be ignored. So can misses and wounded game.

 

[Litehiker]

I agree that downrange wind(s) can wreak havoc on accuracy if they are strong enough.

But it is the FFP wind that the Kestrel measures that is by far the most important wind in terms of affecting bullet flight. Pushing a bullet off by 1/10 of a degree in the first 100 meters is a big deal in a 500 meter shot.

So yes, downrange wind doping and mirage reading (often one and the same) are still skills that good shooters have acquired and aspiring shooters need to study.

All I am saying is that the technology I have describe takes virtually all of the other environmental factors into consideration with a combined speed and accuracy the has not existed until very recently.

I don't think Burris will sit back and fail to incorporate Bluetooth Smart into its excellent Eliminator III.

Those here at the LRH forum who have noticed that I have mentioned this fusion of these technologies more than once may wonder why I am so enamored of it. The answer lies in the fact that in the 1980s I actually talked to Burris about incorporating a laser rangefinder into a riflescope. They politely told me that they "will think about it". Evidently they did, a lot, once computer chips became small enough and inexpensive enough to use in a reasonably sized scope.

We have come a long way from the cumbersome hand-held ballistic computers that required a LOT of manual inputs (as well as a lot of time) to arrive at a good firing solution to the current Kestrel/Applied Ballistics 4500 with Bluetooth Smart and a companion BT Smart laser rangefinder.

I recall that a few years ago I mentioned on Sniper's Hide that the Kestrel/Horus 4500 had made handheld ballistic computers obsolete. I was thoroughly and frequently castigated by a shooting school instructor for even suggesting such a thing and that his handheld ballistic computer was far superior to the Kestrel/Horus instrument. That was enough for me to leave the site permanently. (I'm not thin skinned but I could see from that and other threads that the site had become filled with very touchy folks who argued with each other too heatedly. I hope it's changed.)

Time and use has proven the Kestrel/Horus or Kestrel A/B to be the best there is for advanced solutions (yes, execpting downrange winds). I think more will use it, individually or in a spotter situation with the spotter doing the spotting-ranging-wind/weather reading for the shooter.

 

[ZSteinle]

Eliminator IV will be released this year at shot show. Although its nothing like what describe it will be on of the biggest releases this year.

 

[el matador]

But it is the FFP wind that the Kestrel measures that is by far the most important wind in terms of affecting bullet flight. Pushing a bullet off by 1/10 of a degree in the first 100 meters is a big deal in a 500 meter shot.

This is not true. Bullets don't get turned by the wind, they get pushed sideways. A bullet is like a gyroscope and it takes significant force to change it's axis of rotation. If you have 10mph wind from the left during the first half of flight, and 10mph wind from the right during the second half you will end up with zero net wind drift.

Interesting concept with the bluetooth scope though. Tracking point has already done some really cool things with bluetooth scopes so I'm sure we'll see more of it being used in the future.

 

[NWmissouriman]

This is not true. Bullets don't get turned by the wind, they get pushed sideways. A bullet is like a gyroscope and it takes significant force to change it's axis of rotation. If you have 10mph wind from the left during the first half of flight, and 10mph wind from the right during the second half you will end up with zero net wind drift.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around that statement. If you're shooting to 1,000 yards and throughout the first 500 yards you have a full and constant 10mph wind and then at 501 yards it completely switches and you have a full and constant 10mph wind from the opposite direction I don't see how you can net zero wind drift. Reason being, from 501-1,000 yards that bullet is slowing down more, thus taking longer to get through the second 500 yards than it did the first 500, which in my mind makes me think it will have more drift. At least that's what makes sense in my mind.

 

[el matador]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around that statement. If you're shooting to 1,000 yards and throughout the first 500 yards you have a full and constant 10mph wind and then at 501 yards it completely switches and you have a full and constant 10mph wind from the opposite direction I don't see how you can net zero wind drift. Reason being, from 501-1,000 yards that bullet is slowing down more, thus taking longer to get through the second 500 yards than it did the first 500, which in my mind makes me think it will have more drift. At least that's what makes sense in my mind.

You are right. The wind would have to shift halfway through the flight with respect to time, not distance.

You bring up a very good point here, that in reality the wind down range has more of an effect on a bullet than the wind near the shooter.

 

[NWmissouriman]

You are right. The wind would have to shift halfway through the flight with respect to time, not distance.

You bring up a very good point here, that in reality the wind down range has more of an effect on a bullet than the wind near the shooter.

lightbulblightbulb Now I understand where you are coming from. lightbulblightbulb For some reason I wasn't even thinking about flight duration, all that registered in my head was distance.

 

[bigngreen]

If you have 10mph wind from the left during the first half of flight, and 10mph wind from the right during the second half you will end up with zero net wind drift.

This is not correct, the near wind will call for more correction value than the far wind.

For my 270 WSM and 170 Berger a 10 MPH wind calls for 3.5 L, if I switch winds at 500 yards using a multi wind program it calls for 1.5 L. The near wind contributes 2.4 MOA and the far wind 1.1.
I would have to have the winds switch at 345 yards for them to cancel out by 1000 yards.

 

[LouBoyd]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around that statement. If you're shooting to 1,000 yards and throughout the first 500 yards you have a full and constant 10mph wind and then at 501 yards it completely switches and you have a full and constant 10mph wind from the opposite direction I don't see how you can net zero wind drift. Reason being, from 501-1,000 yards that bullet is slowing down more, thus taking longer to get through the second 500 yards than it did the first 500, which in my mind makes me think it will have more drift. At least that's what makes sense in my mind.

For a detailed explanation of the correct equation which explains wind deflection and which is used in every ballistics computer program see: Modern Exterior Ballistics by Robert L. McCoy 1999 section 7.4 "The effect of constant crosswind on the flat-fire trajectory"

The equation was published in 1857 by the French ballistics researcher Didion.
It is simply:
Z = W(t-(X/V)) where

Z= deflection distance perpendicular to trajectory
W = wind velocity perpendicular to the trajectory
t = actual projectile time of flight
X= path distance
V= initial velocity

The equation is shown the the for for the entire path, but it's still true if the path is treated in individual segments of distance or time. To use the equation however the velocity of the bullet vs time or distance must be known by calculation or measurement.
Units don't matter as long as all distance units and time units are consistent.

For rifles with decent accuracy bullets do turn in an attempt to align the spin axis of the bullet with the direction of the trajectory. Gravity and wind both cause bullet trajectories to not be straight lines. The change is not instantaneous causing bullets to fly in slightly helical paths which are not easily predicted, so they are ignored by most ballistic programs. This is also discussed in the book above by McCoy. There are also discussions (with math) for wind which is not perpendicular to the the trajectory. Wind is rarely perpendicular to the trajectory or uniform along the trajectory and typically a continuously varying vector in four dimensions including time with respect to the bullet.

 

[ZSteinle]

it make a lot of sense if you think of it this way

Say you are shooting to 1000, and the wind is only blowing from left to right at 10 mph from 0 to 100 yards and from 100-1000 yards there is no wind. In that first 100 yards say your bullet would drift 1" off of target but once it gets to 1000 yards your off by 10". Now if it were the opposite scenario and there was no wind from 0 yards to 900 yards and from 900 yards to 1000 yards there was a 10 mph wind from left to right it would drift around 2 or 3 inches off of target at 1000 yards.

 

[rcoody]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around that statement. If you're shooting to 1,000 yards and throughout the first 500 yards you have a full and constant 10mph wind and then at 501 yards it completely switches and you have a full and constant 10mph wind from the opposite direction I don't see how you can net zero wind drift. Reason being, from 501-1,000 yards that bullet is slowing down more, thus taking longer to get through the second 500 yards than it did the first 500, which in my mind makes me think it will have more drift. At least that's what makes sense in my mind.

you know I always thought that the second half of the flight time would be where the most effect of wind would be. the bullet is slowing down and it is riding in a moving mass of air much like a boat in a cross current.

but studies have shown that it is really the first third. The rational is that in the first part of the bullets flight wind deflection creates an angle in the flight path. A small 1 degree change near the shooter has a much greater effect than a 1 degree change half way down range. What is strange to me is that the bullet actually turns into the wind like a weathervane. It is all very complicated. Brian Litz book applied ballistics would be a good place to start if you really want to understand it.

 

[NWmissouriman]

it make a lot of sense if you think of it this way

Say you are shooting to 1000, and the wind is only blowing from left to right at 10 mph from 0 to 100 yards and from 100-1000 yards there is no wind. In that first 100 yards say your bullet would drift 1" off of target but once it gets to 1000 yards your off by 10". Now if it were the opposite scenario and there was no wind from 0 yards to 900 yards and from 900 yards to 1000 yards there was a 10 mph wind from left to right it would drift around 2 or 3 inches off of target at 1000 yards.

This is all true.

However, what I said also holds true. It depends on where the wind starts in that second half. If the bullet has the same distance to travel in the second * half* as it did in the first * half* and the wind gusts at the beginning of the first half and then gusts again at the beginning of the second half that bullet is actually going to drift farther during the second half because it has slowed down thus having a longer time of flight allowing it to be moved further. This is all assuming the wind switches at the half way distance.

 

[Litehiker]

ZS,

A Burris ELIMINATOR IV?? I was just kidding but if you say it's coming I'm all-a-twitter!