doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com The Square Load

I don't think it's completely pointless, but there is a lot going on that we don't have any handle on. Pattern boards can give you an idea of a loads range or distribution, but like you said, the target is left out of the equation.

On a dead straightaway shot or a stationary target, the pattern board will tell you everything you need to know. Just like the writers who would show pictures of patterns with clay targets or bird outlines drawn in the empty spaces in the patterns.

A clay target or bird passing sideways through the shot swarm, is actually larger than its outline because it is in motion, so its occupying (?) more space in the shot swarm than a stationary target. Even if there are holes in the pattern, the target can't just fly through the holes.

For a computer to consider all the possible trajectories and speeds a target could fly through a shot swarm and then calculate how efficient that load would be a hitting the target, I don't know, that seems to be an astronomical problem to me. I suspect we might not learn a whole lot more than we know now, maybe just knowing which loads have the most even distribution and shortest strings are all we really need.

Tim

I could have just said that the single pellet break 'finding' (it's presented as 'shown' as in 'proven') simply 'exceeds my experience' as indeed it does.

A humorous swat at scientists got me called a cretin.

Things just kind of snowballed from there, and I still don't know why I'm not entitled to my own facts since the president clearly is.

All this, and I had time to shoot 400 targets this weekend. Trap, skeet, sporting, and 5-stand. I did not hit them all, and certainly got my share of cheapies. There was one line of trap though, where they all went up in smokeballs.

I'm having a Bourbon in celebration and toasting shooters, statisticians, and clinical scientists everywhere.

I've got a bridge for sale on E-bay. $10 to Dave if it sells.

AFAIC the "holes" in patterns don't exist at all for the reason stated above. That applies to "straights" as well since the target is not likely to be on a true parallel path to the swarm on any plane - particularly the vertical. There is no "hole" for the target to fly in in 3 dimensions in a dynamic situation. But it is a traditional excuse that has some real use level so it cannot be discredited. Alternate facts have a long and illustrious history.

And I have personally observed a number of people smoking 100 consecutive targets. What tw says is a simple fact and I'd bet vital body parts that single pellet breaks could be auctioned for $millions based on rarity.

the book is available on Amazon if you feel like popping $55 to read it

Why blow fifty-five bucks on the book.

I'll wait for the movie.

Wonko, have you looked at the photos in Brister's book? The ones of patterns shot at stationary targets vs moving targets? A 2D pattern--which you get when you fire at the traditional pattern plate or paper--is as good as it will ever get, because you've eliminated the 3rd dimension: time. A swarm of pellets doesn't fly through the air like a pie plate. It's more like a cone. And depending on distance and angle--the greater the distance and the closer to 90 degrees the angle, the more pronounced the effect--there will indeed be holes in a pattern shot at a moving target that aren't there when you shoot at a stationary target. Brister's photos of pattern sheets resulting from shots fired at moving targets demonstrate that very clearly.

Shot stringing and 3D patterns lend credence to the one pellet break, if you think about it.

No, it would mean there must be a lot of zero pellet breaks.

The average shotgunner simply lacks the means of taking 3d patterns. 2D patterns are certainly not totally irrelevant. For at least 90% of game or targets shot shot stringing simply results in a slight elongation of the pattern, direction determined by flight direction of the target. 2D patterns with holes will still have holes or at least very thin areas in them while those without holes will not pick up big holes. A "Well Distributed" 2D pattern will result in a good 3D pattern.
For "All" shooting forget the existence of the "Square Load" & for the vast majority forget you ever heard of "Shot Stringing".

Brister was not shooting at moving targets he was shooting at a moving pattern plate. The motion of the target is wholly unaccounted for. What with the random nature of shotgun shot swarms and a total lack of some methodology to present a cogent and consistent representation of the event in action I will be forced to retain my opinion that holes do not exist from the perspective of the target in a dynamic situation. This of course probably does not include shooting #4's at a 100 yd target or some other reductio ad absurdum contention. I'm talking real life not some fantasy.