doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Target-gun bbls - what's the latest thinking?

ODW, read the following with an open mind as a bunch of OWT's don't pass muster in the light of scientific evidence. Jones based his conclusions on some 2500 patterns shot in groups of 10 per gun/load/choke. His early work showed that patterns are so variable that samples of less than 10 are likely, very likely to give false data. The most impressive part of his work is methodology to capture patterns with digital photos, feed the photos to a computer, and software to give statistically valid analysis. For scientific purposes, his is the only "good" data we have.

Synoposis: OWT's investigated.

Increasing the velocity of the shot tends to give wider patterns (Largely false)

Fixed choke guns can give the benefit of tighter patterns by using larger sized shot (False)

Plastic wads are the greatest advance since the invention of choke boring (True for trap, False for most other shooting)

Boring barrels beyond nominal improves the quality of the pattern (Largely false)

Soft shot gives wider patterns (True, but largely irrelevant for most shooters)

Very tight chokes lead to blown patterns or overly "Hot" centers (False)

A taper-parallel choke gives the best patterns (False)

Some combination of gun/load gives more even patterns (False)

Steel shot gives tighter patterns than lead (False for UK #7.5)

Heavishot gives tighter patterns than lead (False)

Short shot-columns give better patterns (False for typical weights of shot)

Every gun is a law unto itself (False until someone tests every gun)

Multiple pellet strikes are required to break a clay target (False)

There is much more, but it is some heavireading!

DDA

Don, you should've started another thread with that post, thirteen of them in fact!

We have discussed many of them in previous threads and I have decided that some of the above statements are correct only when stated exactly as they are, but that they convey a different meaning to the average joe (read, non-engineer). A slight change in the wording changes the entire scope of meaning, i.e. "Multiple pellet strikes are required to break a clay target". That is false only because the author proved that he COULD break a clay target at times with one single pellet. It does NOT mean that one pellet will always break a clay target, that one pellet will probably break a clay target, or even that one pellet stands a good chance of breaking a clay target. I have, and can at any time, walk out on a clays course and pick up a sackful of clay targets that have as many as four pellet holes through them, that are otherwise unbroken. That particular statement is useless to most clay target shooters, IMO.

This is just an example of how vague several of Jones' statements are regarding patterns and their effect(s), and their causes.

SRH

So it sounds like the take away here is: It's the shooter, not the gun.

Thanks for all the input.

OWD

Great reply to Don's list Stan. Very well stated.
JR

Stan, you are right about the exact language. However, OWD wanted a synopsis and I think this is a fair one for an English major.

As you have shown, even multiple hits, even as many as four, don't assure a broken target. Nor, does one hit assure a broken target. But, big butt, single hits can break a target. The research was for predicting probabilities of broken targets so patterns can be associated with scores and aiming error.

DDA

Pretty much, IMO.

I'd say that the shooter is the biggest contributing factor to breaking birds consistently, and at a high percentage. The fit of the gun is important, using an appropriate load is important, using enough choke is important, and I think for most of us mere mortals, using a heavy enough gun to help attenuate recoil is important.

SRH

Hi, John. Assuming you are primarily agreeing on the single pellet target breakage, consider the following. Are you aware of any other research on target breakage other than collecting unbroken targets and assessing hits? I'm not. Far as I know, Jones's work is unique for scientific determination of what is required to break targets.

As Jones notes in the book, there are many factors involved in the dynamics of whether the target breaks of not. There are zones of the target that are robust to a pellet strike, others that the pellet can penetrate with full expenditure of it energy, and still others that the pellet can penetrate without expenditure of full energy. Further, the angle at which the pellet strikes is important to the amount of energy imparted to the clay; penetration vs glancing.

When the clay is struck by a pellet imparting sufficient energy, a fracture initiates at the point of impact and spreads across the clay. Clays are actually very strong, but brittle. The spin of the target is exactly the force that tends to grow the fracture. The extreme example of this is the target that more of less falls in half in a clearly discernible time lag after the shot.

We have all seen targets emit a puff of dust and proceed merrily on their ways. Likewise, we have seen targets shed the proverbial visible chip, break in half or three pieces. These are more likely to be single pellet events than multi-pellet events. Only more likely, not exclusively.

The foregoing may not seem useful to the shooter. However, I'll give an example of how it has affected me. I no longer say such lines as, "You must have been behind that one since the chip came off the back edge." I now know that I have no idea how much rotation the target had between impact and fracture growth to chip shed. If the target had half a rotation, I would be 100% wrong.

Jones did not totally solve all shotgun pattern questions, but he did give us a wonderful set of data to build upon.

I have two suggestions: #1. read the book, and #2. don't bother shooting patterns unless you are going to do Jones's analysis.

I hope no one is offended. This is meant only as discussion.

DDA

Spoken like an engineer (and that is a compliment). To paraphrase Drew Hause's tag line "More data, less talk."

He may have a certain perspective on this issue, but Jim Eyster is extremely knowledgeable about target gun performance and is very generous with his time if you call with questions. His approach is data-driven and does not simply rely on standard modifications like lengthening forcing cones.

Like I mentioned before - if you are gonna be doing patterns and making grand statements from your "data" then you really need to read the methodology that Neil Winston uses. The BS Eliminator.

People like Eyster and the like in particular should be reading that.

thinking something doesn't make it real

believing something doesn't make it true

have another day
Dr.WtS

Eyster

For those of you who like to delve deep into the mysteries of one-pellet strikes, this thread has an in-depth discussion involving Neil Winston and Dr. AC Jones on that topic:
TS.com