Which would take the less wind?

[GPConway]

From Collins online dictionary: https://grammar.collinsdictionary.co...e-and-practise

From the webpage quoted ... "In British English, practice is a noun and practise is a verb."
And that says it all really.

From Google:
"UK:Practise (US: practice), verb ... To perform (an activity) or exercise (a skill) repeatedly or regularly in order to acquire, improve or maintain proficiency in it.

Practice, noun [mass noun]
a) the actual application or use of an idea, belief, or method, as opposed to theories relating to it.
b) the carrying out or exercise of a profession, especially that of a doctor or lawyer.
c) the business or premises of a doctor or lawyer.
d) the customary, habitual, or expected procedure or way of doing of something."

... but yeah, the difference can be subtle. I just know that it makes my spidey-senses tingling ... like the use of 'meter' instead of 'metre' or 'parallax' instead of 'focus' or 'power' instead of 'energy' ... don't even get me started on 'Ft/Lb' instead of 'Ft･Lbf' ...

George

[gsxrman]

Blimey, someone should tell the military. They've been using versions of the same calculation for the best part of 200 years.
Just to get this straight ... how far would you hold off at 50 Yards with a 5 MPH crosswind? How would you know that the crosswind was 5 MPH? How would you know that the wind speed and direction was uniform from muzzle to target?

I think that you're maybe missing the point here. The OP's question relates to the pellet choice displaying the least susceptibility to lateral drift. While the question was in itself moot, he's now been given the means to objectively determine the answer for himself. Job done.



Shouldn't that read 'Practise, Practise, Practise.'?
... unless you're a GP/dentist/solicitor of course.

George

The point that i was trying to make is that there is no substitute for "practice" and experience. There are too many variables to use the science reliably in the real world like pellet size, wieght, fps, wind speed, wind direction and wind breakers which all vary from shot to shot.
Its not like we carry a windmill and an Anemometer around and check before every shot or run along with a series of flags for every shot. You need the experience of being out there in the wind. You dont stick ya finger in the air and go thats 5mph I need to allow precisely "73mm" You gather a feeling from watching branches, leaves, the pull cord and the feeling of the wind on your face etc and then measure it in distance rather than speed i.e. that feels/looks like 10mm, 25mm or 73mm. The top FT shooters read the wind well. I know military snipers still use a lot of "gut feeling" which is what I am trying to explain here. I do not dispute the science at all it is just too precise for the actual real world with real world variables.

[TonyL]

Excellent scientific input, as ever, from Jim, George and ballisticboy.

[TonyL]

I came up against this whole question when I started shooting at my new shooting range.
For years I only shot 177 at 50yard indoor range and to be honest nearly all my different pcps would when shooting 8.4 j.sb be extremely accurate .
But now I have a more local farm to shoot on which is outdoor and the range is is up to over 100 yards.
But it really suffers from various different crosswinds which deffinaty effected the lighter 177 pellets far worse than the .22.
The greater pellet drop of the 22 was far more consistent than the windage of the 177.
Indeed in certain atmospheric conditions by putting the scope slightly out of focus I was able to watch the pellets go down range and the 177 were veering all over the place.
I don't shoot my 177s there now and have purchased 2 new krals in .22 and only use them now.
In fact lately I have trying out all the different slugs in the Krals and had good results as their choked barrels Suit the slow speed far better than the FX liners.
And have some good results out to some long distances.
I think the point I was making is the gravity pull is consistent on a pellet where as the wind is anything but so it's easier for me to compensate for a proven drop rather than a guess for the wind!

Strange you should mention that, as that would be my dilemma with the heavy vs standard weight .177s. You can learn the trajectory inside-out (subject to pellet drop also being influenced slightly by wind?) whereas applying exact scientific formulae for each and every shot for most people to allow for wind drift wouldn't happen. That's when the experience and reading the conditions comes in.

Incidentally, amongst my limited testing, I have overheard some people saying at a very blustery Quigley Hollow that at the more extreme ranges we plink at there (over 50 yards, and up to 75, not competitive and certainly not applicable to hunting) that the .22 is less affected than the .177. Again, that would have to be regarded as a broad, sweeping statement and would very much depend on individual pellets' characteristics and properties. I'd love to have the time and facilities to test and compare lots of different pellets of both the main calibres in various conditions to try and build a clearer, empirical picture.

[Petest]

That is indeed the comp I am talking about. Unfortunately my shooting time is limited. So if I waited for a still day when I was free to shoot I might only submit 3 cards out of 12 in a year.

From the answers here my gut instinct to shoot heavier .177" pellets seems a good starting point.
Cheers all.

I'm in the same boat. I try to get there every weekend but can not always make it. I am away most of this week, out for birthday celebrations Saturday, may go up Sunday with a hangover. Got my 25yd card to shoot, may give it a go feeling slightly worse for wear. What's the worse that can happen?

[bootneckbob]

I'm with GSXRMAN in that I don't really dispute the science but that it's really fairly meaningless and you just need to get out there and gain experience. Make your own Dope chart (Data Obtained Previous Engagements) or notes. Or just keep it in the old grey matter.

For what its worth, I shot JSB 10.3s for years, probably nearly 10, then I switched to 7.9s. I shot the first 20 targets on a windy Shebbear course (known as windy ridge) with 10.3 and then 7.9 giving the same wind (same rifle, swapped out pre zeroed scopes on Leupold QRW mounts). That's to say from my notes on wind which do come from a chart mentioned already in this thread. My notes on wind are based solely on a broadside at 10mph at given ranges. So for a 50yd target at 10mph side on it says 120mm. So my chart says range, 50, clicks 1 full up, 120. 120mm is 3 full size kills, So if I thought it was broadly 10mph give or take as an average and side on to me I'd aim off by 2-3 kill size widths into wind. It would very unlikely it was this clinical, but its a start point and for me the wind figures broadly speaking work. I found no difference in the two weights, that's to say the same figures work for both.

Fundamentally (and not being drawn into BC) I believe its swings and roundabouts. Heavies better BC, but longer time in flight. Lighter ones less time in flight so less time to be affected. The groups might not be as good but good enough. The science won't like this but I knocked down the same number of targets with both pellets, not just then but in general. I'm still on 7.9s. Would I go back to heavies; yes in a heartbeat but everyone else is buying them now so they aren't available. Am I bothered about shooting 7.9s, not at all.

I remember this light or heavy question coming up before and I'm sure I'm right in saying the FT world championships have been won with all three popular weights.

[Shed tuner]

It seems no matter how much you try to explain how pellets, or projectiles of any kind, are affected by cross winds, there are still some who prefer to believe the random theories of others. A full explanation of how a cross wind affects pellets was given in this thread in reply 35 0n page 2.

https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA...opic=169459.20

Amazing information on that thread BB, thanks for taking the time to share.

Do you not feel it's time to resurrect your experimental pellet designs with a manufacturer ?

[ballisticboy]

Do you not feel it's time to resurrect your experimental pellet designs with a manufacturer ?

30 years ago, when I was a keen 40-year-old, then I would have tried it. Now, I'm not sure I would want all the hassle. A few years ago, when I was still working, I did refine the design to improve the in bore performance. I am also not sure I would keep the boat tail as for sub 12FPE it doesn't do much at normal ranges and it does complicate the accuracy as it leaves the barrel.

Being so lightweight, they were intended for sub 12FPE, but they could be made heavier by making them longer for higher energies. The external ballistics would need to be looked at for higher speeds with usual barrel twist rates. The BC would of course be much better than any pellet, thereby reducing the wind effects, but they would not be cheap.

[Shed tuner]

30 years ago, when I was a keen 40-year-old, then I would have tried it. Now, I'm not sure I would want all the hassle. A few years ago, when I was still working, I did refine the design to improve the in bore performance. I am also not sure I would keep the boat tail as for sub 12FPE it doesn't do much at normal ranges and it does complicate the accuracy as it leaves the barrel.

Being so lightweight, they were intended for sub 12FPE, but they could be made heavier by making them longer for higher energies. The external ballistics would need to be looked at for higher speeds with usual barrel twist rates. The BC would of course be much better than any pellet, thereby reducing the wind effects, but they would not be cheap.

sounds like a gap in the market... I'm sure you could reduce the hassle factor by acting in a consultative capacity...