doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com On plated shot ...

Gents,

You can test the hardness of the shot you use and if it's not hard enough, it is quite simple to harden lead shot. Chilled shot is generally 8 to 12 on the Brinnel scale, with a simple hardening procedure you can increase the hardness of your shot to 25 or 28 on the Brinnel Scale, or lower if you want. This procedure is explained in detail in most of the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbooks.

It stands to reason that the so called "nickel plated" shot is nothing more than nickel washed soft lead shot. The cost to actually plate the soft lead pellets would not be conducive to a good profit margin, but a hardness test would prove it.

Here's a new Brinnel hardness tester for sale....

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Portable-Brinell...=item417c1582f2

DDA

Don, when someone comes up with a conclusion based on "statistics" that can be thrown into doubt by the simple collection of real, actual physical evidence--things we can look at and touch--then yes, I definitely do think the rest of his work is open to question. Your background is engineering. Mine is assessing source reliability, as an intelligence analyst. What the one pellet thing tells me is that Dr. Jones is spending too much time in his laboratory and in front of his computer, and not enough time doing the very basic and simple "evidence collection" one can do on a target range.

And you're operating on the assumption that a target broken in half or into just 3 or 4 pieces is a single pellet break. How do you KNOW that?

Larry could you explain to me how the existence of unbroken targets with one pellet hole in them contradicts Dr. Jones studies on the subject.

He says one pellet breaks happen at a certain frequency - 1/100 or 3/1000 or something like that.

Everyone agrees that not all one pellet hits result in a break. And you stated that fact.

How does your statement contradict Dr. Jones conclusions about the frequency of one pellet breaks?

Do you also contend that no one pellet hits result in a break?

Until you get down to numbers I don't understand how you can claim Dr. Jones is wrong about his statistically calculated number of one pellet breaks.

Not challenging, trying to understand the debate.

Thanks,

Mike

Running a gun club; I picked up a lot of targets with more than one hole in them, sometimes as many as 4 holes,but with no pieces missing.

Bueford Bailey told me he and another person who I cannot remember used nickel plated 5's for a while at long distance trap and they broke every target........until someone protested and they had to stop. He grinned telling the story.

Statistics say: If you put one leg in a bucket with boiling water, and another leg in a bucket of near-freezing water, that on the average, you are comfortable.

Sam Ogle, Lincoln, NE

But one of the largest industries in the world is the insurance industry. And they use lots of statistics. And they make lots of money based on those statistics. So statistics are used to make predictions and decisions that are more beneficial for those insurance companies than decisions made using intuition alone. The fact that statistics have predictive value doesn't mean the Dr. Jones' conclusions are dead on. Dr. Jones may have made a mistake in premise, math, empirical data, or judgment.

I am trying to understand Larry's argument that since one hit unbroken clays are extant Dr. Jones' calculation of the frequency of one hit breaks is wrong.

I've read this thread 3 times. Where exactly did Larry claim that Dr. Jones was "wrong?"

Fair enough. Would you concede that Larry strongly implies Dr. Jones work is suspect.

"Re Dr. Jones' work, I'd have more confidence in it if he hadn't made such a point about the frequency at which targets are broken by a single pellet"

Since the thread has taken a bit of drift toward clay target breakage vs. pellet strikes I'll point out several relevant observations. Some have been discussed here before.

1) rotational or centrifugal force has a significant effect on target breakage. I happen to subscribe to the idea that a single pellet strike can cause a target break, not all the time, but frequently when the targets are good quality pitch & the machines in good repair.

2) older machines [clay target throwers] arms become worn smooth & do not impart the same RPM to the target as when new, making target breakage more difficult

3) some targets, in fact, do not break or separate until almost landing, that is why NSSA refs are instructed to not call a target 'lost' until it has hit the ground & also why they are taught to watch each target until it has landed. I've witnessed numbers of targets break [separate is the better term here] less than a foot off the ground. No, I've no idea how many pellets struck those targets, only that they were delayed 'breaks'.

4) some targets are harder than others, even when made from the same pitch. As a rule one can say that in cold air & damp that targets are going to be more difficult to break than dry ones & I am not speaking of targets stored outside, just realitive humdity & temperature conditions.

4a) I witnessed and shot at some 'bio' targets at an ATA shoot the summer before last in 100+ temps that could be moved a couple of feet on impact that did not break. Numbers of them were recovered, some had as many as seven (7) holes in them.

Lastly, w/a program like Dr. Jones' the basis for comparative measurements/pattern efficiency is made quite easy. Think of it like using an engine dyno., as long as you are using that single dyno for comparision you can tell if you are gaining or losing w/any modifications made & retested from your base line.