Kestrel 5700 Elite Windage

[CShooter92]

Hey,

I have been playing with my kestrel 5700 to figure out my MPH gun with my 6.5 Creedmoor. Its running Berger 130gr AR hybrids at about 2875fps. I am also using the custom curve as I have found that the elevation calculations are pretty much perfect out to at least 1100.

I set target distance at 600 yards, then adjust the WS1 to 0 (to eliminate AJ), and play with WS2. I have found that at 3 o'clock wind of 7 mph gives me 0.6 mil of windage. However, if I simply change the direction to 9 o'clock, the windage changes to about 0.8 mil. These numbers are both with spin drift on, if I turn spin drift off, they get slightly closer (approx 0.65 & 0.75 mil respectively). I'm just curious as to why these numbers do not line up exactly?
Are there any settings that I'm not seeing that need to be changed?

 

[Mordamer]

Try setting your direction of fire different and changing your latitude. That's probably what's doing it.

Or just find the MPH wind the averages to .6 mils with 3 O'clock or 9 O'clock. Turn spin drift off and find what makes it .65 from one direction and .55 from the other.

 

[Luvman]

What’s your target direction set to? Set it to 0.

Coriolis maybe?

 

[CShooter92]

My direction of fire is 0 degrees and changing latitude to 0 doesn't change anything drastically enough. They're still like 0.1 mil apart. I realize that this is a small amount but it just bugs me that they aren't the same haha

 

[JustSendit]

Hey,

I have been playing with my kestrel 5700 to figure out my MPH gun with my 6.5 Creedmoor. Its running Berger 130gr AR hybrids at about 2875fps. I am also using the custom curve as I have found that the elevation calculations are pretty much perfect out to at least 1100.

I set target distance at 600 yards, then adjust the WS1 to 0 (to eliminate AJ), and play with WS2. I have found that at 3 o'clock wind of 7 mph gives me 0.6 mil of windage. However, if I simply change the direction to 9 o'clock, the windage changes to about 0.8 mil. These numbers are both with spin drift on, if I turn spin drift off, they get slightly closer (approx 0.65 & 0.75 mil respectively). I'm just curious as to why these numbers do not line up exactly?
Are there any settings that I'm not seeing that need to be changed?

If you 0 out all wind (ws1/2) is there any residual data in wind correction? Spin drift was my initial thought but you have that turned off. If it’s a consistent .1 check zero offset, that would keep that consistent .1 regardless of distance.

I have in the past restored my kestrel to factory defaults and started from a clean slate when something seemed to be in error consistently. The newer 5700 elites have been right on though.

 

[Steel+Killer]

Maybe change your barrel twist direction see if is not accounting for a small amount of spin drift even though you have it turned off.

 

[elmuzzlebreak]

Having the same issue but it's more than .1 off. I'll post actual values when I get home later today.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Having the same issue but it's more than .1 off. I'll post actual values when I get home later today.

If it’s more than .1, triple check spin drift isn’t on.

 

[ScottDWallace]

You can scroll down to "Ballistics" and enter there. It will show you the math of what is adding how much. It's a nice sanity check sometimes.

 

[CShooter92]

So I took all the advice here and figured out it was a combination of spin drift, coriolis (latitude setting), and Aero jump (WS1). I guess when I was playing with it, I would shut one off and then turn another off. Once I got them all off, my windage was exactly 0.

I'm just wondering now what the standard settings are for shooting a match? Should I leave spin drift on? I think I'm going to leave WS1 set at 0 and latitude set at 0.

 

[Dthomas3523]

So I took all the advice here and figured out it was a combination of spin drift, coriolis (latitude setting), and Aero jump (WS1). I guess when I was playing with it, I would shut one off and then turn another off. Once I got them all off, my windage was exactly 0.

I'm just wondering now what the standard settings are for shooting a match? Should I leave spin drift on? I think I'm going to leave WS1 set at 0 and latitude set at 0.

Spin drift off, latitude to 0 or 1, always zero Wind1

 

[CShooter92]

Spin drift off, latitude to 0 or 1, always zero Wind1

ok, Just curious why to leave spin drift off? It looks like out of the 3 factors, it would affect flight the most (ie: 0.2mil at 1000)

 

[Dthomas3523]

ok, Just curious why to leave spin drift off? It looks like out of the 3 factors, it would affect flight the most (ie: 0.2mil at 1000)

Because between wind and wobble zone, you won’t be able to shoot that difference. Not to mention target size at that distance.

Can you call wind at 1k down to 1mph? Most can’t.

 

[KYpatriot]

Because between wind and wobble zone, you won’t be able to shoot that difference. Not to mention target size at that distance.

Can you call wind at 1k down to 1mph? Most can’t.

This isnt a valid reason to leave it off. Now if you gave evidence that spin drift correction as calculated is in error, and some people think ballistic calculators over correct for SD, then that would be a reason to leave it off.

Tolerance stacking is a thing. If you leave out known sources of error that are easy to correct for just because you cant shoot them, individually, your solution is less accurate than it could have been. Where does it end? 1% Scope tracking error, forget about it? Zero offsets? Seight height? Aerodynamic jump, velocity adjustment for temperature, etc etc.

All those errors, while small, are real. They make us less accurate, and are so easy to correct with our modern tools it just makes no sense not to do so, as long as the correction itself is accurate it costs nothing to include it.

 

[Dthomas3523]

This isnt a valid reason to leave it off. Now if you gave evidence that spin drift correction as calculated is in error, and some people think ballistic calculators over correct for SD, then that would be a reason to leave it off.

Tolerance stacking is a thing. If you leave out known sources of error that are easy to correct for just because you cant shoot them, individually, your solution is less accurate than it could have been. Where does it end? 1% Scope tracking error, forget about it? Zero offsets? Seight height? Aerodynamic jump, velocity adjustment for temperature, etc etc.

All those errors, while small, are real. They make us less accurate, and are so easy to correct with our modern tools it just makes no sense not to do so, as long as the correction itself is accurate it costs nothing to include it.

@lowlight

 

[Dthomas3523]

This isnt a valid reason to leave it off. Now if you gave evidence that spin drift correction as calculated is in error, and some people think ballistic calculators over correct for SD, then that would be a reason to leave it off.

Tolerance stacking is a thing. If you leave out known sources of error that are easy to correct for just because you cant shoot them, individually, your solution is less accurate than it could have been. Where does it end? 1% Scope tracking error, forget about it? Zero offsets? Seight height? Aerodynamic jump, velocity adjustment for temperature, etc etc.

All those errors, while small, are real. They make us less accurate, and are so easy to correct with our modern tools it just makes no sense not to do so, as long as the correction itself is accurate it costs nothing to include it.

You probably need to do more reading and testing of AJ and SD.

It doesn’t end up the same in the real world as it does on the calculator.

And it’s a perfectly valid reason. The rest you mentioned should already be accounted for.

When was the lost match you lost because you didn’t calculate spin drift at 1k and in? I’ll wait.....

This is the same logic as saying “I’m gonna shoot a dasher because it shoots .2 and my other rifle shoots .4.” The amount is negligible and eaten by too many other factors to matter.

We don’t shoot in a vacuum.

 

[Dthomas3523]

This is also why we stop most of our loading measurements at .001, because anymore is negligible.

Spin drift at practical distances is negligible when the entirety of the equation is taken into account.

 

[KYpatriot]

You probably need to do more reading and testing of AJ and SD.

It doesn’t end up the same in the real world as it does on the calculator.

And it’s a perfectly valid reason. The rest you mentioned should already be accounted for.

When was the lost match you lost because you didn’t calculate spin drift at 1k and in? I’ll wait.....

This is the same logic as saying “I’m gonna shoot a dasher because it shoots .2 and my other rifle shoots .4.” The amount is negligible and eaten by too many other factors to matter.

We don’t shoot in a vacuum.

You should probably do more reading of my post before replying. I literally said you should include it IF it is accurate, and mentioned that calculators seem to ovecorrect for it. Frankly I think they overcorrect a little for wind as well but thats another subject.

My point stands...there are many variables that if corrected for accurately make an incremental improvement that, while individually seem neglible, nevertheless in total they add up. I listed a few others that wont show up on close moa or larger targets. So what? They are easy to account for, so we do. If spin drift is ovecorrecting, turn it off if it is inducing error rather than correcting it. But that wasnt your argument.

 

[elmuzzlebreak]

If it’s more than .1, triple check spin drift isn’t on.

You were right I was messed up. a 6MPH wind with my 6.5 at 600 is 6 from the 3 o clock and .66 from the 9. So from here is it just at say 200 yds a 6mph wind is a .2 hold and at 300 a 6mph is a .3 hold as a rough start?

 

[Dthomas3523]

You should probably do more reading of my post before replying. I literally said you should include it IF it is accurate, and mentioned that calculators seem to ovecorrect for it. Frankly I think they overcorrect a little for wind as well but thats another subject.

My point stands...there are many variables that if corrected for accurately make an incremental improvement that, while individually seem neglible, nevertheless in total they add up. I listed a few others that wont show up on close moa or larger targets. So what? They are easy to account for, so we do. If spin drift is ovecorrecting, turn it off if it is inducing error rather than correcting it. But that wasnt your argument.

My arguement is that it won’t matter and is not needed.

Again, when did you lose a match because you didn’t have SD turned on?

Because your argument is that .1 is gonna matter because we can shoot well enough that .1 isn’t lost in translation between wind calls, wobble, and target size. Not to mention most shooters aren’t able to shoot .3 groups at distance, let alone .1.

Your argument of tolerance stacking is literally what is working against you.

At these distances, reverse tolerance stacking makes it irrelevant.

 

[Lowlight]

@lowlight

Ya, this is one of those, we should account it for statements because we know it exists... we also know it's roughly (because of variables that affect it) 1% of your dialed elevation so if it's 1%, we need 10 Mils of elevation to be able to account for it. What is 10 Mils for most people, a range they don't have access too.

In the real world, Right Handed Shooters tend to introduce personal shooting errors that also trend RIGHT ... and lefties trend left.

Canting tends to trend RIGHT and with everyone thinking their shitty out of square Harris is good enough, I can demonstrate that a majority of shooters using a Harris, especially those not equipped with a Pod Loc are pushing and trending RIGHT because they cannot tighten the bipod correctly and it lets them push the rifle over with their head and hand when they run the bolt.

Wind, as it rises from the Earth, has a right-hand turn to it, there is that, wind direction has an effect on the amount of SD. Not to mention the absolute terrible wind reading conducted out there. Most people are lucky to be within 3MPH of actual, all this amounts to roughly 1 MPH if it's all in play. The very best shooters addressing the wind are still over 1 MPH so these drifts are inside that noise.

The fact the industry can mechanically eliminate a big part of these discussions and doesn't should be telling. If every day we read about SD and CE and how Long Range Shooting has all these various DRIFTS which must be accounted for, ask yourself, if you can mechanically reduce them to near zero, why aren't they? Instead, they are selling you all sorts of products to falsely calculate it pretending to give you reasonable and valid data. My other concern is when you talk to these guys in Person and the cameras are off, the microphones are quiet they will tell you it's a flat rate value meant to play the Odds. They are playing a hunch you're a poor shooter and will pull the shot RIGHT so adding in a little extra LEFT should help you vs hurt you, giving shooters a visual.

99% percent of the guys talking SD are using 3DOF software which does not have Yaw or Pitch and cannot natively calculate it. Then they run around the internet telling everyone who listens how they dial in SD starting at 400, 600, etc. Most calculators are doing 2%, which twice as big as it should be.

This is why, new shooters chase this BS and experienced ones laugh, point fingers and get another hit without thinking about it or turning it on. Even at ELR distances, I contradict most and my hit percentage is just as good or better because I focus on the wind, not variable drifts that amount to less than 1% for me because I use left-hand gain twist barrels now.

Turn it off, life is good, dope the wind.

 

[KYpatriot]

Seems like left twist barrels should have been standard in the northern hemisphere but I guess when these things got established such offsets werent even on their radar.

So are you saying that these solvers are doubling the spin drift correction intentionally to help offset all the shooter errors from right handed shooters? Is that why it seems to overcorrect if you are not making those errors?

Do you feel as I do that the wind correction in these solvers is slightly aggressive as well?

 

[Dthomas3523]

If the wind was too aggressive, we wouldn’t be able to use solvers to give us our mph for gun calibration.

They only seem aggressive because we are taking wind reading at shooter and applying it as if that’s the only wind affecting the bullet consistently for the entire flight.

That’s also why most don’t use their kestrel for a wind call unless it’s a very, very windy day.

 

[KYpatriot]

I dont apply wind the way you describe. But I think the kestrel is extremely useful for training the wind. I look at conditions near me...the grass, the bushes, the trees, the feel of it, and make wind call then look at the kestrel to test how I did. Then you start to get a feel, in your AO at least, what you are seeing downrange as well by observing those same indicators on the way to the target. I have noticed over the years as my wind calls improve that the point mass solvers I use seem like they overcorrect slightly. I started noticing it on those rare days with pretty steady wind. Id like to get a pda and try Coldbore or ffs and compare but have never got around to it. Admittedly its small, but I think its real though as my confidence in my wind and shooting ability has increased. Wondering if anyone else is seeing this.

 

[Dthomas3523]

I’m always holding less wind than the kestrel calls for. Though I only use the kestrel when the wind is really bad, and that’s just to get an idea of the wind speed when it’s high.

The reason it’s less is because we can’t input the wind at all distances. Typically you will have several different environmental features between you and the target. They will rarely be more wind than you have at the shooter unless you’re inside an enclosure or somerhing.

So logically you will almost have less wind hold as the wind typically doesn’t speed up throughout the bullet flight. It usually has terrain features that slow the wind down or change the wind direction.

 

[Steel head]

I’m always holding less wind than the kestrel calls for. Though I only use the kestrel when the wind is really bad, and that’s just to get an idea of the wind speed when it’s high.

The reason it’s less is because we can’t input the wind at all distances. Typically you will have several different environmental features between you and the target. They will rarely be more wind than you have at the shooter unless you’re inside an enclosure or somerhing.

So logically you will almost have less wind hold as the wind typically doesn’t speed up throughout the bullet flight. It usually has terrain features that slow the wind down or change the wind direction.

When the wind starts hitting 15-20 I wish I had a kestrel because I’ve used one in those situations and it was really helpful.

 

[Dthomas3523]

When the wind starts hitting 15-20 I wish I had a kestrel because I’ve used one in those situations and it was really helpful.

Same here. I’m pretty good with calling wind to about 12mph. Starting to get better to about 15.

But after that, the kestrel comes out. I have trouble with distinguishing once wind starts whipping 20mph+

After that, it all feels/looks the same to me.

 

[KYpatriot]

I’m always holding less wind than the kestrel calls for. Though I only use the kestrel when the wind is really bad, and that’s just to get an idea of the wind speed when it’s high.

The reason it’s less is because we can’t input the wind at all distances. Typically you will have several different environmental features between you and the target. They will rarely be more wind than you have at the shooter unless you’re inside an enclosure or somerhing.

So logically you will almost have less wind hold as the wind typically doesn’t speed up throughout the bullet flight. It usually has terrain features that slow the wind down or change the wind direction.

Not sure why you would think the wind is highest at the shooter position. I dont see a correlation with that at all. I shoot almost exclusively in the field and almost never at prepared ranges/facilities. Across fields, treelines, valleys, hills, etc. There is no reason to assume the wind is highest where I am at vs the target. Sometimes its not even in the same direction.

If you are consistently holding less wind than your observed wind calls would call for on the solver perhaps you are seeing what I am seeing.

Its really hard to know for sure...since even with a kestrel and really good wind skills, its still easy to be off a little. Im wondering if a test has been done on an instrumented range.

In any case, Ive learned what works for me, but Id still like to know the answer just for curiosity sake. These rabbit holes are part of the fun for me even though most of it isnt required to shoot steel at 1000 yards or so. I guess I need to get a non point solver and see how it compares....

 

[Dthomas3523]

Not sure why you would think the wind is highest at the shooter position. I dont see a correlation with that at all. I shoot almost exclusively in the field and almost never at prepared ranges/facilities. Across fields, treelines, valleys, hills, etc. There is no reason to assume the wind is highest where I am at vs the target. Sometimes its not even in the same direction.

If you are consistently holding less wind than your observed wind calls would call for on the solver perhaps you are seeing what I am seeing.

Its really hard to know for sure...since even with a kestrel and really good wind skills, its still easy to be off a little. Im wondering if a test has been done on an instrumented range.

In any case, Ive learned what works for me, but Id still like to know the answer just for curiosity sake. These rabbit holes are part of the fun for me even though most of it isnt required to shoot steel at 1000 yards or so. I guess I need to get a non point solver and see how it compares....

Dude, I’m done with you.

You go shoot 5-10,000 rounds a year and see what you see. Cause that’s what many of use are doing.

The wind value at the shooter (except for rare circumstances with wind valleys and such) is almost always more at the shooter as we make sure we take our kestrel and get in the most open area.

We do this because if we have to choose, we’d rather hold more wind, than not enough.

Unless you’re shooting on perfectly flat ground (most don’t) you will have natural terrain in the way that will more than like either A) change the direction of wind and give you a lesser value or B) shield from wind

You argued a point earlier and the hmfic had to straighten you out. Take a hint, read and shoot more.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Even suggesting that the software is wrong because you hold less than the wind input at the shooter is without any logic whatsoever.

You’d have to have many, many more data points for wind along the way to even begin to theorize this. Basically, you’d need lidar.

Not to mention when we use our software to figure out our gun mph, we are dead nuts and it works every time. If the software didn’t calculate wind properly, it wouldn’t work.

 

[Lowlight]

Don’t waste your time with this dude he doesn’t get it and wants to spin everything he doesn’t get.

we use solvers to dope the wind after we determine the rifles’ MPH, which also aligns to the solver

we (speaking for me) shoot in the wind under field conditions, what he is looking for is not how we do business anymore, he doesn’t even get when you are talking wind at the shooter, so don’t waste your time

so I will end here,

we didn’t stop shooting and actually teach wind classes in this stuff cause we see it constantly





in the background you can hear mike yelling for 3 mins

 

[Dthomas3523]

Don’t waste your time with this dude he doesn’t get it and wants to spin everything he doesn’t get.

we use solvers to dope the wind after we determine the rifles’ MPH, which also aligns to the solver

we (speaking for me) shoot in the wind under field conditions, what he is looking for is not how we do business anymore, he doesn’t even get when you are talking wind at the shooter, so don’t waste your time

so I will end here,

we didn’t stop shooting and actually teach wind classes in this stuff cause we see it constantly





in the background you can hear mike yelling for 3 mins

We had a .22 match out to 280yds last week. Most targets were 140+

Wind was switchy 20+mph and we shoot over a dirt pit with berms, water, hills, all kinds of shit to disturb wind. Was that shitty wind where the water and the trees are moving one way but you end up holding the opposite because the way the berm bends the wind.

Managed to still shoot 78%. But apparently I’m “assuming” how to use kestrel and wind at shooter according to this dude. ??

Off topic, when is the wind the worst in Colorado? I’d like to come for a class when the best chance of a day like the video.

 

[Steel head]

Don’t waste your time with this dude he doesn’t get it and wants to spin everything he doesn’t get.

we use solvers to dope the wind after we determine the rifles’ MPH, which also aligns to the solver

we (speaking for me) shoot in the wind under field conditions, what he is looking for is not how we do business anymore, he doesn’t even get when you are talking wind at the shooter, so don’t waste your time

so I will end here,

we didn’t stop shooting and actually teach wind classes in this stuff cause we see it constantly





in the background you can hear mike yelling for 3 mins

when the kestrel starts sounding like a RC cars your got yourself a proper wind!

 

[Lowlight]

Spring for sure, but honestly it’s nonstop lately,

I had @Jefe's Dope on the range today and he needed a tiny bit at 50 yards with his 22, it was about 6 mph average with gusts to 12.

our may class is full but April should be good, or even June it might be still strong, worst case it’s only one day around 12mph vs the potential for 24 to 40 lol - when it’s starts cranking we race to the rifles to shoot in it

 

[Lowlight]

The video of the spotter, with Doug in front me. That morning the wind was dead, the front you see was building and killed the wind. Then in the span of a few minutes it unloaded the energy to 45MPH.

the students were at lunch and Doug had his rifle on the bench, it threw the rifle 6ft off the bench.

it was a switching head wind at 45mph and Mike jumped on the 6cm AX and our dope was dead on, you held maybe .5 but we ran the truing bars for elevation and it was spot on.

 

[jrsandiego12]

What I find ironic after reading all this is the the Solver is actually so close to accurate!! Imagine that - you have wind at the shooter, the solver gives you a solution, and yet the wind throughout the flight is totally different at different parts of the flight. And yet, most of us have learned to hold close to what the solver provides and get hits. Most people do the following:

>judge wind enough to settle on a wind number despite the kestrel readings jumping around
>get a solution - say ".5 right from cm"
>yet we look down range and make a call on how we are going to start a hold because we know the wind isn't a full same value the whole flight - so we hold .4 or .7, based on a brain solver
>line up the shot and judge wind on our face as we pull the trigger to hold slightly more or less
>and we often get a first round hit, note it hit right or left and send the rest of the string with adjustment

the wind reading in the solver is a starting point, not an absolute.

 

[jrsandiego12]

one more thing - in Scott Satterlee's 3-day class in San Diego in Jan. 2020 he showed us an invaluable method of judging wind - instead of trying to arrive at an absolute solution, he showed us how to use kestrel to read the wind for a minute or so, watching the mil correction go up and down with the wind speed. You could see that the wind call variance for say 600 yards was between .4 and .8 Left. When you looked through your scope and saw the target was .5 wide (for example), you could hold say left edge of target for a .4 hit on left edge and if the gusts pushed your actual hold to say .7 on a specific shot, the drift would still hit on target.

To me that was a great way to think of wind as bracketing the solution needed in the conditions and using the hold to have the highest probability of hit - rather than just holding center mass and a gust likely pushing you off target.

Most of you probably already knew that - but for me it was an "a ha" moment. The wisdom of Scott

 

[Nap Mag]

one more thing - in Scott Satterlee's 3-day class in San Diego in Jan. 2020 he showed us an invaluable method of judging wind - instead of trying to arrive at an absolute solution, he showed us how to use kestrel to read the wind for a minute or so, watching the mil correction go up and down with the wind speed. You could see that the wind call variance for say 600 yards was between .4 and .8 Left. When you looked through your scope and saw the target was .5 wide (for example), you could hold say left edge of target for a .4 hit on left edge and if the gusts pushed your actual hold to say .7 on a specific shot, the drift would still hit on target.

To me that was a great way to think of wind as bracketing the solution needed in the conditions and using the hold to have the highest probability of hit - rather than just holding center mass and a gust likely pushing you off target.

Most of you probably already knew that - but for me it was an "a ha" moment. The wisdom of Scott

can you explain this again?

 

[Lowlight]

He is talking Error Budget on a target and most comp guys don't do winds in a traditional sense because they are moving fast and shooting multiple targets at multiple distances.

You look at the wind,

High -
Avg -
Low -

Then apply a value to each of those, and you can overlay it on the target

Here is a similar discussion but with gusts vs target width, but the concept is similar



Just work the explanation in reverse, I am using the target and gusts, use the wind based on the target. You end up bracketing targets based on the wind.

 

[jrsandiego12]

He is talking Error Budget on a target and most comp guys don't do winds in a traditional sense because they are moving fast and shooting multiple targets at multiple distances.

You look at the wind,

High -
Avg -
Low -

Then apply a value to each of those, and you can overlay it on the target

Here is a similar discussion but with gusts vs target width, but the concept is similar



Just work the explanation in reverse, I am using the target and gusts, use the wind based on the target. You end up bracketing targets based on the wind.

hahaha, I love seeing stuff like this. That target is genius! Nice

 

[jrsandiego12]

Yeah - lowlight's video post is a good explanation. But I will try to be clearer.

If you put in the range into your Kestrel and hold it up to read the wind, let's say the wind reading goes up and down between 4 - 8mph. But you can also watch the mil/moa hold reading and it will vary with the wind reading - so let's say it varies between .2 and .6 mil (a range of .4 mil), which correlates to the 4-8mph wind.

So then you look through your scope and see that the target is .8 wide (yes, convenient for this example). Most of us have been trained and try to get our shots to hit center mass (cm). So habitually we hold our wind hold off of cm. If you hold max wind .6 say left, and the wind is blowing less than 8mph when you send the shot - you only have the left half of the target (.4 mil of target) available. So if the wind influence dropped to 4mph / .2mil, you may well just miss off left edge of target.

But instead of focusing on a cm hit, you can think of "using" the whole target, you would logically make your .6 mil wind hold on the .2 mill inside the left edge of the target. That way if the wind influence is anywhere between 4-8mph the bullet still hits within the .8 width of the target.

Hope that helps.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Yeah - lowlight's video post is a good explanation. But I will try to be clearer.

If you put in the range into your Kestrel and hold it up to read the wind, let's say the wind reading goes up and down between 4 - 8mph. But you can also watch the mil/moa hold reading and it will vary with the wind reading - so let's say it varies between .2 and .6 mil (a range of .4 mil), which correlates to the 4-8mph wind.

So then you look through your scope and see that the target is .8 wide (yes, convenient for this example). Most of us have been trained and try to get our shots to hit center mass (cm). So habitually we hold our wind hold off of cm. If you hold max wind .6 say left, and the wind is blowing less than 8mph when you send the shot - you only have the left half of the target (.4 mil of target) available. So if the wind influence dropped to 4mph / .2mil, you may well just miss off left edge of target.

But instead of focusing on a cm hit, you can think of "using" the whole target, you would logically make your .6 mil wind hold on the .2 mill inside the left edge of the target. That way if the wind influence is anywhere between 4-8mph the bullet still hits within the .8 width of the target.

Hope that helps.

This can be taken a step further to keep in line with CM. As there are two points for center mass:

1: as an aiming point

2: as an impact point

IMO, the aiming point is the most important of the two if I had to pick one. Let’s say you are going to bracket from .2-.6 Instead of focusing on the .2 or the .6 on the inside edges, focus on the .4 in the center.

Then watch for the left/right/center impact. If it’s left/right and the wind is steady you can adjust for a center mass impact. If the wind is still switchy/gusty, you can decide to continue the same bracket, or adjust the bracket slightly. However the key is to continue using center mass as your aim/focus point.

Ever watched someone miss just off the edge by .2 or so, they apply a correction and then hit in the exact same spot? Sometimes they didn’t believe the bullet and didn’t apply a correction, however, many times (might even be most of the time) they were focused on the edge of the target as their focus/aiming point. They missed .2 off edge and just moved .2 to the edge. Then the wind picked up or died down (depending on which edge) in the value of about .2 and sent the bullet into the same spot.

Had they been focusing on the center, they would have corrected at least .5

Bracketing is a very very valuable tool, but IMO, the bracket should still be based around center mass.

 

[jrsandiego12]

This can be taken a step further to keep in line with CM. As there are two points for center mass:

1: as an aiming point

2: as an impact point

IMO, the aiming point is the most important of the two if I had to pick one. Let’s say you are going to bracket from .2-.6 Instead of focusing on the .2 or the .6 on the inside edges, focus on the .4 in the center.

Then watch for the left/right/center impact. If it’s left/right and the wind is steady you can adjust for a center mass impact. If the wind is still switchy/gusty, you can decide to continue the same bracket, or adjust the bracket slightly. However the key is to continue using center mass as your aim/focus point.

Ever watched someone miss just off the edge by .2 or so, they apply a correction and then hit in the exact same spot? Sometimes they didn’t believe the bullet and didn’t apply a correction, however, many times (might even be most of the time) they were focused on the edge of the target as their focus/aiming point. They missed .2 off edge and just moved .2 to the edge. Then the wind picked up or died down (depending on which edge) in the value of about .2 and sent the bullet into the same spot.

Had they been focusing on the center, they would have corrected at least .5

Bracketing is a very very valuable tool, but IMO, the bracket should still be based around center mass.

Excellent point. I still use the edge often as a very fine aligning point, but you are right, the adjustment needs to still be from CM.