|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,481
Posts545,240
Members14,410
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 969 Likes: 38
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 969 Likes: 38 |
Fascinating discussion.
A quick read of Dr Andrew Jones' on shotgun ballistics simplifies matters. He proves that shotgun patterns are subject to the laws of normal distribution, that roughly 60 per cent of shot will be in the central third of the pattern no matter what choke or load is used, square or other. Tighter chokes give tighter overall patterns but the distribution is constant.
The bottom line is if you want to hit, better put the center of the pattern on target and practicing hitting is more important than load dimensions.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,377 Likes: 105
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,377 Likes: 105 |
Dr. Jones also theorizes that there must be a lot of single pellet breaks when shooters go 100 straight at skeet. Which has always led me to believe that he's spent more time by far on a computer than he has walking around a skeet field and picking up unbroken targets that have at least one hole.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
Stan;
Your reply re-enforces the point I was making. As a conscientious shooter you do not take those shots at doves over 40 yds, exceeding 40 mph @ 90° to your shot line with your .410. You instead work at picking shots within its capabilities. I applaud you for this.
OLd Colonel;
Note I did not write the definition of a square load, merely stated what it is. The definition "IS" that the length of the shot column is equal to the diameter of the bore. neither 7/8oz in the 20 or 1 oz in the 16 meets this criteria. Both are in my opinion better loads for the gauge than the actual square load, but They Ain't Square.
In a bore of nominal size & no shot collar 7/8oz in a 20 stacks up to about .84", 1oz in the 16 about .85" & 1Ľoz in the 12 about .86" All of these you will not have very similar column lengths, all are efficient loads for the gauge & all were able to be balanced with the early smokeless propellants. All have been loaded with great success for well over a century but none of them are square.
Miller/TN
I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 969 Likes: 38
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 969 Likes: 38 |
Shooting at skeet targets with a 4.5mm (0.177 inch) air rifle soon shows if targets can be broken, or be left whole, by a single hit from a small pellet. Having done it a few hundred times I know that both events are possible.
Dr Jones developed software that allows objective analysis of patterns, thus escaping the drudgery of shot counting and the risk of subjective miscounts. He put 2500 patterns through the system. Arguably 2500 more than most shooters will ever test.
Last edited by Shotgunlover; 04/18/17 08:47 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,018 Likes: 50
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,018 Likes: 50 |
Stan;
Your reply re-enforces the point I was making. As a conscientious shooter you do not take those shots at doves over 40 yds, exceeding 40 mph @ 90° to your shot line with your .410. You instead work at picking shots within its capabilities. I applaud you for this.
OLd Colonel;
Note I did not write the definition of a square load, merely stated what it is. The definition "IS" that the length of the shot column is equal to the diameter of the bore. neither 7/8oz in the 20 or 1 oz in the 16 meets this criteria. Both are in my opinion better loads for the gauge than the actual square load, but They Ain't Square.
In a bore of nominal size & no shot collar 7/8oz in a 20 stacks up to about .84", 1oz in the 16 about .85" & 1Ľoz in the 12 about .86" All of these you will not have very similar column lengths, all are efficient loads for the gauge & all were able to be balanced with the early smokeless propellants. All have been loaded with great success for well over a century but none of them are square. I understand now why you defined as you did and that I misunderstood what was meant by "square load" in its purely correct state and that I have always misunderstood it. I guess you learn something new every day. Regardless at least we agree the idea of a "square load" is not any advantage and the 96/1 rule is a good measure
Michael Dittamo
Topeka, KS
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,035 Likes: 47
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,035 Likes: 47 |
I've not read Jones.
Did Jones discuss 3 dimensional considerations in target hit probability?
Even at skeet, the effect of the length of the shot swarm is not negligible.
Given a 3 foot length of string, and a 58 fps target, the target would appear to move 2 inches during shot cloud passage. Low 3 and high 5 are both 90 degree deflection shots.
It ain't much, but it's half a target diameter.
If the shot does not all get there at the same time, 2D patterns would seem to have little correlation to target hit probability.
We need statistical modeling in 3 dimensions. Did Jones do that?
"The price of good shotgunnery is constant practice" - Fred Kimble
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,154 Likes: 1152
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,154 Likes: 1152 |
Dr. Jones also theorizes that there must be a lot of single pellet breaks when shooters go 100 straight at skeet. Which has always led me to believe that he's spent more time by far on a computer than he has walking around a skeet field and picking up unbroken targets that have at least one hole. That's where he loses credibility with me. I'm sure we all get a single pellet break occasionally. I'm also sure we have birds scored lost that have multiple pellet holes through them. I've walked the course and picked up too many with three holes through them, and not a single chip gone. They are really easy to find, it doesn't take much looking to find them. I hate to lose a bird like that, which is one reason I favor tight chokes. When no chips come off a bird because the whole thing floats away in a cloud of dust ............ that's the kind of "break" I like. There are random pellets on the fringe even with tight chokes, too, but the density is greater and the possibility of a bird escaping with a single hole or two is reduced, IMO. Opponents to tight chokes will argue that by doing so the overall chances of hitting the bird are reduced. To that I say ......... not for me, or many others who are much better than me. SRH
May God bless America and those who defend her.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,035 Likes: 47
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,035 Likes: 47 |
All targets are not created equal either.
The worst ones are those that are left over from the last target load a couple years ago, stored in an open shed for a couple winters, then baked in the sun before they go in the machine.
Good luck.
I'll take fresh White Flyers. Poof.
"The price of good shotgunnery is constant practice" - Fred Kimble
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 969 Likes: 38
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 969 Likes: 38 |
Because we find unbroken targets with one or more holes the general inference is that no targets can be broken by one pellet. Shoot a few targets with a pellet gun and see what happens, especially if they are hit on the rim. The majority do break when hit by a pellet travelling at 500 fps.
The core of the Jones finding, that most pellets are in the central third of the pattern is the valuable point. If the dense central part is put on the target there will be a hit.
In other words technique trumps ballistic microanalysis. Most of us avoid the words "I missed" and we lay the blame on other factors.
Last edited by Shotgunlover; 04/19/17 07:36 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,154 Likes: 1152
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,154 Likes: 1152 |
Notice I did not say that no targets are broken by one pellet. I said I was certain that we all get one pellet breaks occasionally. Shooting a target with a pellet gun proves nothing, however. Targets in the air are more likely to break, due to centrifugal force helping the targets come apart when cracked. If you could hit a flying target with an air rifle shooting a single #8 lead pellet it might prove something.
And, not having read Jones' work completely I am only commenting on what those here who have done so have said ........ but, if finding that the majority of the load is in the central core is the most important thing to come from his work, I'd have to offer that he did an awful lot of work for a little benefit. Anybody who has ever looked at a shotgun pattern on paper or a grease plate can plainly see that.
SRH
May God bless America and those who defend her.
|
|
|
|
|
