Shooting Sequences

We use BS>FS^BS>FS

I can't tell you why, we just do. I know why you flip, but one over another is preference.

> We use BS>FS^BS>FS
>
> I can't tell you why, we just do. I know why you flip, but one over another is preference.

Aloha, Kris: Always nice to hear from you! Thanks for sharing another option!
I almost settled on BS > FS ^ FS > BS...now you added another light twist to it with a good logic 🙂

In the example, there are four stations to observe, ie four foresights. Each has only one observation per face (or scope direct, scope reversed). The backsight is observed and recorded at the beginning and end of each face set - that is only two extra observations for a complete scope direct, scope reversed set. One of the reasons for observing and recording the backsight readings beginning and end was to expose reading mistakes, bumping the instrument, etc. The instrument man or recorder could tell if there was a problem before moving on to a next setup.

For two, three, four points, n points..., how many total angular observations(scope direct, scope reversed) and recordings would be required using BS > FS ^ FS > BS? How would you quickly check before pulling up the instrument?

> In the example, there are four stations to observe, ie four foresights. Each has only one observation per face (or scope direct, scope reversed). The backsight is observed and recorded at the beginning and end of each face set - that is only two extra observations for a complete scope direct, scope reversed set. One of the reasons for observing and recording the backsight readings beginning and end was to expose reading mistakes, bumping the instrument, etc. The instrument man or recorder could tell if there was a problem before moving on to a next setup.
>
> For two, three, four points, n points..., how many total angular observations(scope direct, scope reversed) and recordings would be required using BS > FS ^ FS > BS? How would you quickly check before pulling up the instrument?

Aloha, Alan:
I misunderstood your original note. I didn't realize the F1, F2 etc. were four different stations. I was thinking you were observing same station four times!! My mistake.

With your method the average were taken two times. So the difference--BS is observed again after each FS observation which acts as a check where the BS > FS ^ FS > BS does not provide the check. Once I understand your example has four different stations being observed between two BS observation it came clear!

Thank you for taking the time and responding!

I worked for a company one time that took three direct F1 readings and then would flip, and then take one indirect F2 reading. I asked the chief why we weren't wrapping angles as sets and then average them. He said this was more accurate and showed me that the F1 readings were all within seconds. I showed him that if you took the F2 reading, it wasn't and they should be averaged. He had no good answer.

I did learn how to close the horizon there (I'd never done it) and it was cool, but you never flip and mitigate the error in leveling so I didn't carry it forward. Now, if someone were to close the horizon, flip, then close the horizon again, then you'd have something to work with.

Personally, today's guns really don't need the flip due to the dual compensator's, BUT, and I stress this, the compensator's will not take out the issue of the instrument settling or not being leveled properly in the first place and flipping WILL mitigate that (to a certain extent). For this reason, and this reason alone, we still flip, even though SOP is to check and re-level every 10 minutes or before a double/traversepoint/corner, et cetera.

The main reason I still book them (yes, good old-fashioned manual entry) is because I want to make sure that 50 years from now- when I'm picking rutabagas with a stepladder- my work can be easily retraced.

We still write down all angles and distances to traverse points and corners and anything else of importance. Even though everything is data collected.