|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
404
guests, and
6
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,466
Posts545,088
Members14,409
| |
Most Online1,258
Mar 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
Don, if he's still promoting the idea that there are a lot of single pellet breaks at skeet, I think a lot of people would question the statistical reliability of whatever data supports it.
Larry, it is unreasonable to try to impeach the patterning data based on the extension of it to performance prediction. The main body of his work tells you how a pattern "IS," and how various of the factors affect that "IS." His data is reliable enough that anyone repeating his work will arrive at similar conclusions. His data is extensive enough that most of the "old shooter's tales" are explored.
Extending pattern "IS" to performance in terms of broken clay or dead bird is very difficult. For me, his work is by far and away the best to date. Perhaps some day we will have a standard definition of what it takes to be some % sure of what is required to break a clay.
DDA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
I have all the respect in the world for Don, and for his endless striving to try to encourage armchair patterning experts to get more scientific in their evaluations, and discussions of same. It is people like him who help to keep us grounded . Thank you for the kind words. Stan. Yes, my position exactly.
But ........ as much as I agree with Don about evaluating patterns, I have to say something. I don't mean this to be belittling of scientific research and data, in any way, but there is just so much help it can provide you in the effort to raise your shell to bird average. This may sound harsh ..... but, show me a shooter who is obsessed with evaluating patterns and I will show you a so-so clay or game shot. Brister may have been the exception, I never knew him. I have a lot of respect for him, but I've never met anybody like him. I have been friends with many excellent shotgunners, some of whom are among the best in the world at sporting clays and live pigeons. None of them, I mean none, have ever spent any significant time patterning and evaluating patterns. They shoot quality ammunition, quality guns with good chokes, and they SHOOT, a lot. They do not obsess over chokes, patterns or loads. If the combination they are using breaks birds well, and they cannot see any obvious failures, they just keep shooting. Stock dimensions, handling dimensions, choke selection, load selection, etc. can be no more effective than the shooter. A poor gun selection in the hands of a good shooter will likely be more effective than a good gun selection in the hands of a poor shooter. Nuttin' harsh about that --- just fact.
I know from experience that you can overthink shotgunning. As much as I enjoy occasional patterning of new loads, I don't obsess over them. I don't use screw in chokes in my primary comp gun. It has fixed chokes at .020" and .020". I KNOW that I should benefit from good spreaders on very close stuff, but it doesn't work out that way. The more I think about "helping" my shooting with open chokes, spreaders, etc., the worse I shoot. You wanna kill more birds with less shells? SHOOT MORE!!!!! Pattern your gun/load to make sure it is not shooting a terribly patchy pattern, then fugettaboutit, and just shoot more. Patterning is much more useful for visually showing you what the maximum range is at which you should shoot a bird or clay, with a choke/load combination, than it is for determining which load may give you a percentage point or two more breaks, IMO. Good shooters know that good loads in good guns will reliably shoot reliable patterns. They also know that if they center, truly center, the target in the pattern it can be broken to seemingly impossible distances regardless of choke.
Talking about all this is entertaining and helps pass those days and nights when we can't get out and shoot, but for goodness sakes don't think it will make you a better shot. Only shooting will do that. Lots of shooting. No gun/load will compensate for lack of shooting skill. The optimum gun/load for you will, however, make it easiest for you to achieve your maximum potential --- IMO.
Rant over. It was a good rant, one to be proud of!
SRH
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,278 Likes: 11
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,278 Likes: 11 |
I've mentioned Mr. Winston in previous discussions dominated by opinion rather than fact. I will do so again in what is likely a vain hope that some of you will have sense enough to pay attention and appreciate the methodology and results of obtained data. Eyeball Analysts are welcome to be enlightened of course. http://www.claytargettesting.com/index.htmlhave another day Dr.WtS
Dr.WtS
Mysteries of the Cosmos Unlocked
available by subscription
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,065
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,065 |
That's a great Website Wonko.
Thanks!
I am glad to be here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,377 Likes: 105
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,377 Likes: 105 |
Don, if he's still promoting the idea that there are a lot of single pellet breaks at skeet, I think a lot of people would question the statistical reliability of whatever data supports it.
Larry, it is unreasonable to try to impeach the patterning data based on the extension of it to performance prediction. The main body of his work tells you how a pattern "IS," and how various of the factors affect that "IS." His data is reliable enough that anyone repeating his work will arrive at similar conclusions. His data is extensive enough that most of the "old shooter's tales" are explored.
Extending pattern "IS" to performance in terms of broken clay or dead bird is very difficult. For me, his work is by far and away the best to date. Perhaps some day we will have a standard definition of what it takes to be some % sure of what is required to break a clay.
DDA
The problem, Don, is that Dr. Jones himself attempts to extend pattern "IS" to performance on clays, in specific reference to single pellet breaks at skeet. Which tells me that he needed to spend more time strolling around on skeet fields, collecting unbroken targets with one or more pellet strikes, in order to either confirm or question his theory. Anyone who has done that quickly learns that there are a lot of skeet targets that survive a single pellet strike; sometimes even two strikes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,018 Likes: 50
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,018 Likes: 50 |
I call a good pattern one I couldn't throw a bird through out to the range I expect to shoot...Geo So, if the above is good, what is "better?" Jones found you must shoot not less than 10 patterns per load-gun to obtain statistically reliable data. Any one who hasn't read "Sporting Shotgun Performance" should. DDA Concur that patterning requires more than one pattern, not sure if ten is required for statistical consistency. While Jones set 10 as a number to shoot, I believe that it can be done with less, say 6-8, but it is definitely more than two or three, much less one
Michael Dittamo
Topeka, KS
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
[/quote]
The problem, Don, is that Dr. Jones himself attempts to extend pattern "IS" to performance on clays, in specific reference to single pellet breaks at skeet. An interesting topic that needs exploring. Surely you agree with that statement. We lack many/most of the variables that would factor into an answer. However, Jones gave us a bunch of information and direction for further investigation. The fact that Jones made some calculations based on what is known about patterns has nothing to do with how patterns "ARE."
Which tells me that he needed to spend more time strolling around on skeet fields, collecting unbroken targets with one or more pellet strikes, in order to either confirm or question his theory.
Anyone who has done that quickly learns that there are a lot of skeet targets that survive a single pellet strike; sometimes even two strikes. I'd like to think we can agree that understanding how patterns operate is a different topic from how many pellets at what energy hitting a target at what angle of impingement (etc. probably) are required to break clays. I'm fine with you feeling that Jones's single pellet break work can use further development (Jones was working on it last I heard). What I don't see is discounting his pattern work because you question his work on a different topic. [/quote]
DDA
Last edited by Rocketman; 07/14/16 05:06 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
Concur that patterning requires more than one pattern, not sure if ten is required for statistical consistency. While Jones set 10 as a number to shoot, I believe that it can be done with less, say 6-8, but it is definitely more than two or three, much less one
Jones picked 10 for statistical confidence. Shooting fewer reduces confidence. That doesn't mean the data is worthless, just lower confidence. Shotgun patterns are a lot more variable than has been generally recognized in the past. A three shot group from a rifle tells you something. A five shot group tells you more and ten tell the story pretty well. Shooting patterns is not a problem. Analysis, meaningful analysis, is. Using Jones's Shotgun In-Sights pattern analysis reduces the effort required and increases the significance of the data. It makes the data collectible and comparable among experimenters. DDA
|
|
|
|
|
