# How Many of You "Bracket?"



## Bob Wright (May 10, 2006)

I posted under the Ruger Forum my efforts at sighting in my latest, and wondered how many of ya'll bracket your sight adjustments.

In the Army, I was taught to bracket adjustments in calling in artillery fire and this was carried over into sighting in the M1 rifle.

I fire a ten shot group, then use my forefinger and middle finger as sort of a pair of dividers, spacing what I believe to be nearly 3/4", as the Ruger, and most sights, adjust 3/4" per click at twenty-five yards.

If my measuring "dividers" take two steps, or two clicks, I double that and add four clicks.

Last Saturday, my first group was about one-inch to the right, so I figured two clicks left windage was required, so took four clicks left. Nest group was about one inch left, so I came back two to the right and this put me right on.

Bob Wright


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

I am a cheapskate Bob. I only fire 5 rounds per cycle, sometimes only 3. You may have explained why one of my shooting buddies and I always come up with a different number of clicks. I am a retired Engineer and am used to dealing with math. If I know what a click equals I simply calculate what it will take to put it on dead center and dial in that amount. My buddy always bounces back and forth a bit.

:smt1099


----------



## JeffWard (Aug 24, 2007)

I'm a former ingineer... lol... I'm retired from math

I shoot a few, click a few, shoot a few, click a few... shoot a few...

THERE!


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

Bob,
Having pondered this subject for a few minutes I have to ask if you know why standard artillery practice would be to inject a double correction if you know where the target is, where the last round hit and the math necessary to get there. This question is especialy applicable to azimuth corrections. Elevation might remain somewhat questionable if consistant velocities are not the norm.

If you want to blast a machine gun nest or fixed gun etc. it seems that the fewer shots taken the better you have done your job and perhaps saved your own butt if they are shooting back at your position.

Hey Jeff, isn't that the way The Air Force has always done it. Drop a few take a picture drop a few more go get a burger etc. :mrgreen:

:smt1099


----------



## myxd45 (Jan 18, 2008)

JeffWard said:


> I'm a former ingineer... lol... I'm retired from math
> 
> I shoot a few, click a few, shoot a few, click a few... shoot a few...
> 
> THERE!


++1


----------



## Bob Wright (May 10, 2006)

The reason for "bracketing" as explained to me, is that the lateral adjustment is imprecise. (This from 1950s era.) Our corrections were made using the grid scale in binoculars. The point was, our estimated correction was just a good guess, using an estimated range and X-number mils left or right.

Bob Wright


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

My only live fire experience with the Huge Boomers was while stationed on board a radar picket. We had an empty barrel and the skipper decided to test our manualy loaded and aimed 5" guns with the barrel as a target. It was rigged with a pole and flag (Not US Flag) the bottom was weighted so the flag would stay up and set adrift. We moved off till it was barely visible on the horizon then the gun crew was given the order to fire. The first and only shot vaporized it so lacking a target the event was over much to the dismay of the Aft Gun crew. They didn't get to shoot. As a result I never learned much about Bracketing from the Navy. This was in the late 50's.

:smt1099


----------



## PanaDP (Jul 20, 2007)

Bob Wright said:


> The reason for "bracketing" as explained to me, is that the lateral adjustment is imprecise. (This from 1950s era.) Our corrections were made using the grid scale in binoculars. The point was, our estimated correction was just a good guess, using an estimated range and X-number mils left or right.
> 
> Bob Wright


I still don't get it. That methodology seems to be based on the estimated correction always being an underestimation.

Being "imprecise" could also mean that the estimated correction is just as likely an _over_estimation as under-, though.


----------

