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
|
31
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,546
Posts546,142
Members14,423
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,183 Likes: 1161
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,183 Likes: 1161 |
Stan, Brister is 'pre-Jones' data. And pre-Winston.
That's like pre-Copernicus astronomy, haven't you heard? I know who Jones, and Winston, are. I think you meant that tongue-in-cheek.(?) Did they disprove anything that Brister postulated? Anyway, I'm not quite ready to accept that Brister's work is outdated. When it comes to shotguns he's been there and done it.
May God bless America and those who defend her.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2019
Posts: 471 Likes: 190
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2019
Posts: 471 Likes: 190 |
Thanks, Drew, for finding and posting the link to that 2017 thread. Verrrry interesting.
Speude Bradeos
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,741 Likes: 495
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,741 Likes: 495 |
I have shot hundreds of patterns on a pattern plate in everything from 10 to .410. Most were decent with a few just terrible and a few great. You learn a lot about gun fit, hold points and how patterns change over distance. I even learned that I needed to allow for shot drop at long ranges which many seem to think pattern expansion make it unnecessary. I learned that aimed shots and quickly mounted and shot shots were very different.
When you get to the .410 you will find loads which seem very effective look fairly bland or even borderline bad on the plate. Don’t worry about it. And when you see how small the pattern diameter is it will be hard not to try to aim it in the future. I’ve never found the perfect gauge, the perfect choke or barrel. I did come across a mod 1100 barrel which threw almost perfect patterns with everything from 9’s down to 2’s and from 7/8 ounce up to 1 1/2 ounce. But that was a rare barrel.
I love it when people start imploring math or magically properties to patterns. I’ve killed a lot of ducks with the 28, with lead shot in my youth, but never found the magic load. Lead was my magic along with reflexes of youth and a steady supply of ducks to shoot under 30 yards. So I read all these articles about patterns with interest but know there is no one answer. Just like today’s hyper velocity loads are the rage but when I pattern them they never look that great. Again the hope that math conquers all. Being able to have your point of impact be where your aim point is more important to me than the theoretical distribution of random pellets.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,430 Likes: 315
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,430 Likes: 315 |
OTOH it does seem worthwhile to at least attempt to verify one's theories and earnest beliefs, or read the work of those that have done so.
Richard P. Feynman, Professor of Theoretical Physics at the California Institute of Technology; Albert Einstein Award (1954, Princeton) and The Nobel Prize in Physics, 1965 “It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.”
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,990 Likes: 302
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,990 Likes: 302 |
That’s a fact Drew
We were taught, to “only see what is there, and not see what isn’t there…”
Truthfully, if a person makes that mistake, as soon as you submit it for review, somebody’s going to hand you your head. Ideas nowadays in whatever topic, get floated across the globe, and there are always people out there digging in, and checking your work.
One of my kids is a frequently published neuroscientist, there are peopleOn every continent that are desperate to show you that you were wrong. It’s what keeps science moving forward.
Out there doing it best I can.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,464 Likes: 212
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,464 Likes: 212 |
….Truthfully, if a person makes that mistake, as soon as you submit it for review, somebody’s going to hand you your head. Ideas nowadays in whatever topic, get floated across the globe, and there are always people out there digging in, and checking your work…. If the “science” is politicized, all bets are off. There is no honest way that most covid guidelines would pass peer review, none.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,990 Likes: 302
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,990 Likes: 302 |
Sure Craig. They are all lying self serving idiots.
Now is the time for the unsubscribe button.
Out there doing it best I can.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,183 Likes: 1161
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,183 Likes: 1161 |
One of my kids is a frequently published neuroscientist, there are peopleOn every continent that are desperate to show you that you were wrong. Now, that is a "sentence" that is just hard to figure the meaning of, I don't care how much you fool yourself. Maybe a neuroscientist could decipher it ...........
May God bless America and those who defend her.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,464 Likes: 212
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,464 Likes: 212 |
Sure Craig. They are all lying self serving idiots.
Now is the time for the unsubscribe button. I don't think so, but yes some are. Worship the the ever vigilant and safety driven for the peace of mind they meter out, then swing by petri dish grocery store for upland bird fixings? Just kidding, we trust the uber eats drivers for their impecable hygiene.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 601 Likes: 61
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 601 Likes: 61 |
Stan, I think that CZ means that scientists are a highly competitive and critical bunch, delighted to pick holes in each other's arguments and data. Hence the self-correcting nature of science - if you are wrong, your colleagues will be delighted to point out your mistakes. Much better to find them yourself before publishing; it saves a lot of embarrassment. In a huge field like neuroscience, there are thousands of very smart people in Europe, Asia, and North America scrutinizing each other's work.
|
|
|
|
|