joeb33050 wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 6:33am:


(by invitation per post #27 - my observations as a reader)  

Joe I think the term Wind is a poor choice.  A better term would have been a variable as "X".  That would preclude the confusion between wind and Wind.

Good teaching (communication) goes from the known into the unknown.  

Begin by explaining the difficulty in sorting out the myriad of variables - when standing at the line shooting at the 200 yard target, what affects where the bullet is going to hit?  (List a few here - to bring the reader's mind to considering that there are more than can be listed, let alone measured.)

Perhaps a summary statement in the simple terms of the beginner.  Use several short sentences that are clear statements of observable facts - that draw the reader to the same questions that you are trying to address.


The opening statement should give define what you're talking about, where you're headed.  It needs to be in the simple terms of the reader; otherwise it creates confusion.

Cat_Whisperer wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 8:36am:

Here;'s what I'd like explained. You wrote:

"The statements he's made are so blatantly out-to-lunch that, yes, I knew I'd be re-stating the obvious."

Please list/explain. In simple terms.

QuestionableMaynard8130 wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 10:05am:

See if this is any clearer.
Of all the variables that affect accuracy, wind drift is way down the list. "Wind" is down there also. 
The numbers say so, and also say that group size/match ranking is NOT connected to ability to dope the wind.
The conclusion is that with a finite budget to expend on improving accuracy, there are more fruitful expenditures than wind doping. And, Warren, 57 years ago and shooting far smaller groups than cast bullet shooters shoot today, agrees. 
Do you understand this?

Original opening statement:
Quote:


Subsequent statement:
Quote:


         

Why would a shooter consider the analysis relevant or valid, and worth viewing?

Another factor to consider is the type of benchrest shooting Warren Page did as opposed to the type of shooting at ASSRA matches. There's a huge differance in wind drift at 100 yards between a 22 caliber bullet at 3400 fps and a 32 caliber bullet at 1400 fps.I mostly shoot smallbore and matches are won and lost by a competitors ability to pick up on subtle wind changes. I totally agree with Page when he says to pay more attention to mirage - I've seen wind flags pointing in one direction and mirage going in the opposite direction.I've also shot High Power matches in Puerto Rico where wind changes at 600 yards won't just take you out of the ten ring, they'll take you off your target frame. Wind matters; in fact, wind rules.

If you put atmospheric conditions together they form perhaps the most significant variable in match shooting. One day it's temp next its mirage next light. Wind is almost always present and the one you worry about most.

It may be JoeB confused Warren Pages comments. He did spend a lot of time on mirage in his book. Lot of detail on using it to read wind. 200 yards rare for sighting error caused by mirage causing off shots.

Boats

Both Paul Newman and the warden (played by Strother Martin) said, "what we got here is a failure to communicate."

One day while working on cars with my friend Jon Sjolander, Jon gave me a serious look and asked me to admit that if you hold the rifle on the target and squeeze the trigger, the bullets will go into the center of the target no matter what. Extended discussion ensued. Drove Jon to the range and handed him my 308 Sportco practice rifle.

As far as I know it was the first time Jon had fired a rifle. With a sling from the prone position, he put ten shots in a two inch circle in the center of the target at 100 yards. The wind was up as usual. I never argued with him again.

Go figure. 

     Joe.