I always find discussions of this sort immensely tedious. And I have enjoyed engaging Rocketman a number of times in regard to the silliness of his inertia machine - and more importantly the entire basis of its operation, the assumptions that drive it. Ho ho! Wank!! I still have your personal inertia that was stolen by my machine whilst in Vegas. Mess with me and we will see how you shoot from the pretzel configuration.
So, anyway, here is the single pellet BS once again. And again the basic assumptions are unsubstantiable and questionable at best for a single (pellet of) reason. And there is no, absolutely NO standardized real world situation that we all shoot in, to which any acquired data, questionable as it would be in each and every way, could be applied in any remotely meaningful way. Pardone', but I must disagree!
"For me, very simply, because I want to know."
So, Rocketman, just what is it that you will know? I will know if Dr. Jones' pattern probabilities are realistic. If it can be shown to work like the real world, we can run a lot of simulated patterns and predict cross-over points for choke, pellet size, pellet count, and MV. The hard data to do this would be very burdensome.
The obvious solution to the quandary of rationalizing target losses is easy. Use Brister's (I think it was) idea of full choke - fills a 30" circle at the distance the target is usually taken - See Stan above unless you are interested in shotgun technology.
and learn how to shoot
how all y'all doing these days? Mostly finer 'n frog haar; although I can claim only moderate success at being retired. How'z about youse? I sure miss Bill!!
Dr.WtS
