1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Article Pattern Analysis for Busy Sportsmen

Discussion in 'Shooting Related Threads' started by Neil Winston, Apr 9, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,845
    What’s the trouble with patterning?

    A week ago a member posted a question about how to go about patterning - distance, number of shots, etc., the usual reasonable things people who “want to get into patterning” want to find out. In the old days I would have typed it all out in detail once again, but these days I just can’t make myself do it. I’ve corresponded with the poster and know he’s a serious shooter with a lot of drive to get better. But what are the chances, I ask myself, that after I lay out the whole process he will actually do it? Probably no chance at all. After all, realistically speaking, no one really patterns with the accuracy and care and effort which seem to be needed to actually learn anything, though certainly many walk back to their cars with some shot-up newspaper pages under their arm thinking “OK, finally I know all about my gun’s pattern!”

    The problem – the fact that useful patterning requires more work than almost anyone is willing to put out, more dedication than almost anyone has – is apparent in the recent “Patterning is a waste of time” thread. As you read it you can tell that almost no one posting there has ever done it and even fewer intend to. There are a number of imaginative ways to say it but “too much work” is the prevailing undercurrent with “the grapes are probably sour anyway” detectable in almost every post as well.

    Is there a shortcut?

    That’s why when Lon Lauber in Washington state emailed me, wondering what I thought of Ron Jones’ “Pattern Analysis for Busy Sportsmen” in the March, 2013, issue of Shotgun Sports, I perked up my ears. Ron Jones says that you can shortcut the demanding standard requirement of 10 patterns and just shoot 3 and “almost always produce a composite average within 2-3 percentage points of the value arrived at using all 10 patterns.” This is a welcome much-reduced challenge. Shooting just 3 patterns is a far more realistic goal than 10 and maybe there’s enough in the modest “effort budget” so many shooters seem to live by to get even a few to do it.

    What does the article tell us?

    I borrowed the issue from the Buffalo Gun Club and took a look. I was immediately put on my guard when I saw the front page featured the pattern from page 364 of Greener’s “The Gun and its Development,” an example sometimes cited as being “too good to be true” to the extent that John Brindle wondered “(Did) the draughtsman spread the pellets toward the periphery, to spread them more evenly?”

    Jones uses as his standards for choke performance the Oberfell and Thompson charts from 1960 and so is basing his assessments on shells with soft shot and no plastic wads. He calls a full choke one that puts 70% of its charge in a 30-inch circle at 40 yards which may still be the standard but shells and guns do a lot better than that now, as a rule. I’d say 75%+ is more typical these days and the difference is important because for long-yardage handicap you need all the pellets you can get you shouldn’t think that 70% is acceptable “full choke” performance these days, it’s not. Almost everyone does better, many a lot better

    He presents a table of choke difference, all 5% low but good enough, some tables showing the effect of various distances, and a clear and concise plan for getting your three patterns. And (pending verification) the 3-pattern average plan, the real point of the article, looks like a promising way to make patterning “accessible.” Within two or at most three percent of the “real” average? That’s good enough, isn’t it?

    How much corroboration does Jones provide?

    But why do I caution “pending verification?” Well, Jones never presents any evidence that just thee patterns do what he says they will. Maybe in the original manuscript he did, writing “2) the three-shot patterns analysis did a remarkable job of predicting the pattern percentage for any given load.” But I don’t see anything about that now. But we don’t need proof to at least try it, to see if the benefit Jones promises is really there: “It will give you a good idea just what your gun and loads are doing . . .”

    What data will we use and why?

    I’ve always liked the approach of the NRA technical staff to patterning statistics, in that they base their recommendations on the data they have collected over the years rather than relying solely on academic statistics which, though certainly more mathematically rigorous, may lack the insight into what’s likely to make a difference that a workaday practitioner might be able to offer.

    We will use two examples, patterns produced by 1-ounce and 1 1/8-ounce shot charges shot from the same gun. And what we want to know is whether these loads both give us the 75% -or-better patterns we think are reasonable to expect. Said another way, we want to know if Jones’ test will answer our question “Are these loads good enough or should we do more work?”

    How do we choose our examples?

    We know the ten-shot averages for two loads, 1ounce and 1 1/8 ounce, and we will set up some example three-shot mini-tests. I’m sure 20 such examples will be enough; we will just use a random number table, scanning successively and creating triads. If we see a 7, a 4, and an 8, we will pick those three shot numbers, add them up, divide by 3, and have our 3-shot average. If we see 7,4,7, we will move one digit over for the last one pattern, since we wouldn’t, on the field, shoot the same shot twice. When the number given is 0, we will use shot 10. When we have used three digits in the random number table, we will move down the next three.


    Here is the source of our pattern data and why choose them.

    1and11_8aboutthesame_zps08b80899.gif

    We’ve selected those data-sets because, though they are both “typical,” they vary in how “consistent” they are. The 1-ounce patterns only span a range of about 8 percentages points, the 1 1/8 cover about 12. Doing them both will tell us about the generality of Ron Jones’ program.

    The results based on unusually consistent data.

    Generating 20 “synthetic” 3-shot patterns gave these results for the 1-ounce shells.

    consistentdata3shotsort_zps51938ccf.gif

    The article’s assertion that 3-shot averages would fall within three percentage-points of the 10-shot average was supported in this test.

    Will that hold true for the more variable 1 1/8 ounce shells?

    The results from more typical, more variable data.

    lesscons3-shotsort_zpsc3f65f38.gif

    Again, Ron Jones’ prediction is supported. The 3-pattern averages are within three percentage points of the 10-shot average.

    Does this mean we can start right away?

    And save all that work we’ve been putting in on those apparently unnecessary additional seven patterns? We’d better go slow here and back out carefully. Before we go, shouldn’t we just make a quick check to see what we’ve done? What does the averaging of three patterns do that is not done by just looking at only one? Let's make sure that 3 shot give us better answers to the question we were asking. You remember the question: “What we want to know is whether these loads are good enough or should we do more work?”

    Compare our raw results with the averaged ones.

    We have twenty synthetic 3-shot tests but the underlying data comprises just ten, so let’s spilt the artificial ones into two runs and look and see how this averaging works. We’ll do the 1 1/8-ounce data:

    averagingtheeshots_zpsde1d01d7.gif

    Now we see how it works.

    It’s pretty easy to understand it when you compare the individual and the averaged data. Why it works that way should be equally clear. The most deviant values, two in this case, the 67.1% and 79.2% patterns have been averaged with more typical results nearer the center of the distribution. The data appear (but really aren’t, of course) more consistent without those two inconvenient outliers.

    But in 4/5’s of the cases, nothing much has changed. There are both averaged and singular results which are about the same. The extra two patterns have bought you a little, but not much; maybe only a little peace of mind. That “bad” pattern, way down there at 67.1%, might be shouting to warn you that there’s a problem, but if you knew more about patterns you would know that you get them now and then even when everything is fine.

    What do patterns 2 and 3 get us?

    About all those extra two patterns can do is inform you about patterns in general – how they vary, what they look like – rather than about the specific gun/shell combination you are testing. That’s an advantage, for a while at least; knowing more about patterns can’t hurt. But should you do your testing like this from now on? I don’t think so. Really, all it represents is organized “data-improvement,” a bit of intentional self-delusion that your gun “shoots very consistent patterns” when it almost certainly shoots about equally consistent patterns as every other gun at the club. You are still limited to qualitative (What are my patterns like?”) rather than quantitative judgments and as I will discuss later, there are easier ways to get qualitative results if that’s all you want.

    Aren’t those 3-shot averages enough “better” to be useful?

    But “Wait!” you are thinking. “Look at those data. Pretty smooth, pretty nice really; can’t I just use them to compare choke-brands or wads or any of that other stuff that interests me?”

    I have to apologize that my way of presenting data, sorted and graphed, makes things look a lot more consistent, more organized, “better,” than you will ever run into at the pattern board or with the calculator. Looking at the data as they really did come in makes the problem more clear.

    evenwithaveraging_zps9c4a06ae.gif

    It’s still not good enough to use for comparisons.

    Even if you had some choke-tube data which was reliably three or four percent different, it would be easy to make your decision exactly wrong by unknowingly comparing a high result from one with a low results of another. It happens all the time and you never know it because you don’t have the rest of the 10 patterns to tell you what’s really going on.

    If three patterns aren’t enough, how many do I need?

    The technical staff at the National Rifleman breaks the bad news in the April 1980 issue in the article “Patterning your Shotgun” by Robert N. Sears.

    “It is much less appreciated how many shots must be fired to establish the long run average with acceptable precision.

    The number of patterns required depends on how closely the average needs to be determined and with what level of confidence. The table below is based on a statistical evaluation of actual fired patterns.

    American-Rifleman-patterns_zps9cae8b9e.jpg

    The important thing shown is that fewer then 10 patterns is generally not adequate for valid results. If you are not disposed to fire and count at least this many patterns with each barrel and load to be tested, it is best to forget about a quantitative pattern evaluation.”

    “A practical alternative is to use a steel patterning plate. (Description of how to use one.) This method of pattern evaluation if recommended for shotgunners not disposed or equipped to conduct tests which yield quantitative results.”

    Is there an alternative that works?

    I think that the plan offered in Section 3 of my POI and Patterning booklet

    http://www.mn-trap.org/tech_corner/n_winston/nw_poi_pattern.html

    is much better, but not everyone will have the motivation for even that, I suppose. Though it only gives qualitative results (as does Ron Jones’ 3-shot program,) it only needs 18-inch paper instead of 36 or 48 inches wide and you can take a lot of shots and take them home to study any time you want. Just remember that you have to follow the plan in every detail. A measured 13 yards, light factory 7 ½ premium factory shells, paper not cardboard. And take a lot of shots - you have spent the time to set it up, why not get a lot more out of it with just a little more work?

    Conclusion.

    I hope you have enjoyed is review of an article many of you probably read. Has this changed or reinforced your original impression? Are you going to try 3-shot pattern averaging? Tell us what you think.

    Yours in Sport,

    Neil
     
  2. Avaldes

    Avaldes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,876
    Location:
    Central Coast of California
    Excellent review Neil. It is all about the confidence interval you are willing to accept on your data analysis. That is, will your prediction cover 68, 95 or 99% of your data set? Those represent one, two and three sigma confidence intervals. Do you want to be able to state that you are capturing the true performance of your pattern? Then you should know that taking a limited sample opens up the possibility that you are either not measuring the effect of outliers, or that you are only measuring the effect of outliers.

    You have to sample more and more data in order to attain higher confidence in your prediction, which is attained by looking at the err function of the data set (that is how that chart with 90 and 95% confidence is built). You will see that you have to measure a WHOLE LOT more times if you want to achieve a prediction that is very close to your real distribution of pattern density.

    Immediately he said that getting within 3% is close enough. That means that you REALLY only need to measure out to three sigma in order to call it good. Past experience says that 3 measurements do not represent an adequate sample of the distribution. In fact there is something called the Central Limit Theorem that says that you want to measure more like 30+ times to capture a representative distribution. Any less and you are ignoring the presence of outliers, which in our case are the really good or really bad patterns.

    This is all ridiculously complicated math for most people, but the fundamentals of statistics support the assertion that a sample size of 3 is too small.
     
  3. Wolfman

    Wolfman Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    361
    Location:
    Chcago
    WOW Neal - do you ever sleep? Great analysis.
     
  4. morepowder

    morepowder TS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2012
    Messages:
    28
    Will just 3 work if the load is real bad or do I have to do 10 to find out how bad my bad load is? The 3 pattern method would eliminate a good deal of the bad then maybe pattern 10 on what is not bad. Or maybe repetitive 3s on several occasions comparing what is not bad and then try 10 what is left over. Everyone is trying to find the good maybe we should work inversely to find the good. My jug of powder maybe half full.



    Thanks for the great work you do Neil. You have been a great help to us ballistic challenged people....
     
  5. bevolt

    bevolt Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2012
    Messages:
    82
    It could be argued that given the level of random variation from shot to shot, even 10 patterns do provide enough data to determine pattern percentages with desired precision (i.e., reproducibility). Everyone can agree that difference of 7% (i.e., the difference between a modified and full choke, by definition) in pattern percentages is significant. Therefore, a numerical definition of sufficient precision might be,

    If I shoot X number of patterns and calculate the average percentage, I am highly confident (95% probability) that if repeat the experiment, the different between the average percentages will be much less than 7% (commonly accepted as <0.7%).

    Applying this definition to the data presented for the 1 1/8 oz 10-shot patterning experiment and assuming the sample distribution is normal gives approximately,

    Mean percentage = 73.6%

    Standard deviation = 3%

    Standard deviation of the mean for 10 shots = 3%/sqrt(10) = 1%

    Therefore, one can be highly confident (95% probability) that the mean pattern percentage of the 10-shot experiment will be within 2% of the actual mean. However, a precision of 2% seems marginally acceptable as “much less than 7%.” In addition, assuming the same mean and standard deviation for a 3-shot patterning experiment would imply a precision of 3.6%, which is clearly not “much less than 7%.” An impractical number of shots (~80) would be required to increase the precision to 0.7%.

    From a practical perspective, a 10-shot pattern experiment might be seen as the “bare minimum”.
     
  6. Dr A C Jones

    Dr A C Jones Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    367
    bevolt, The way I look at it is, if you need more than 10 patterns to determine the underlying difference between two cases, then the practical difference (i.e. with the shooter and target in the mix) is not worth worrying about(**).

    Andrew.

    (**) If you are Olympic standard and spending your whole life and megabucks shooting, then your definition of practical difference should be a bit more damanding. Oddly, this isn't (always) the case. I have bumped into some people associated with Olympic standard shooting and they are the most bigoted and ignorant you could ever have the misfortune to come across.

    (**) Continued . . . it's quite interesting actually how many patterns you need to optimise the gun. Take a skeet scenario, and assume that 85% PE is your target. I used the Pattern Optimser (above) and put in 550 pellets (typical #9 24gram Olympic skeet load) and a target size of 4 sq inches. A PE of 85% and an assumed shooter skill of 30-inches gives a predicted score of 96.5%. A PE of 87% suggests a score of 96.6, a PE of 83% drops the predicted score to 96.4. So, measuring PE to +/- 2% allows the score to be predicted to within 0.1%. Bear in mind that the higher the pellet count, the fewer patterns are needed. 10 patterns would allow one to optimise a skeet gun to a fairly fine level.

    For trap, basically you need all the pattern density you can get. Assume you have a really tight shooting gun at 78% PE at 40 yards. For a target of 4 sq inches, 400 pellets and a shooter skill of 30 inches, the average score will be 91.5. If you could get a genuine 80% PE, i.e. it really exists and you can determine it, the score will increase to 92.1, i.e. an extra target every other competition. That's worth having. But to measure to 2% would need 20+ targets. If you are lazy and have a gun that only shoots 76%PE (good, but not the best) and never knew about it, the average score would be 90.8, i.e. 1.3 targets behind the one who put in the effort to make sure he had 80%PEs.

    That's the basic effort versus reward scenario.
     
  7. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,845
    Andrew, while your observation

    "That's the basic effort versus reward scenario."

    is certainly true, the American Rifleman also tells us that what we are facing is an inversion of the idea or "diminishing returns," at least at the low end. Rather than each quantum of effort adding a smaller and smaller increment of reward, patterning is more like drilling a well where getting 90% of the way down to water still leaves you dry; you have to do it all to get what you are after.

    Ron Jones' plan of shooting three patterns looks like drilling about 30 feet down for water at 90 feet.

    Neil
     
  8. W.P.T.

    W.P.T. TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    8,371
    Neal,

    Show me two patterns that are exactly alike that have not been overlaid, then do it with different guns and I will be a believer ... Once you drop the hammer if you have a good pattern or a bad one you live with the results because you can't un pull the trigger ... I watched my Father shoot shot after shot (literally hundreds) and case after case trying to get the perfect pattern (load) and he never got it to the day he died ... I watched him count the pellets so each shell had the exact same number of pellets in them, he weighed the amount of powder each one of those shells had in them before he cronoed and pattern tested them to no avail ... He would sit for hours at a drafting table counting the holes in paper after marking them with 30", 25", 20" clear plastic overlays marked in quarters so he would know exactly what each shell did and where if there was any holes in the pattern ...
    I say there is nothing you or anyone else can do to come up with the perfect pattern or perfect load to get that pattern or the shell manufactors would of already done it, being as that is their business ... Your charts prove that shells are inconsistant and there are no two exactly the same ... Not being able to adjust on the run for pattern variations depletes their value, but they do make for good conversation pieces ... Respectfully, WPT ... (YAC) ...
     
  9. Jawhawker

    Jawhawker TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,734
    Neil, we both know that the gentleman who wrote the article was not the originator of the "3 shot" concept for the busy, average,lazy hunter/trapshooter/shotgunner. Amazing how originality is void but accepted discovery/method is credited/creditable in world of writings/literature!

    I believe that three shots can give an idea whether further patterning is beneficial to a point. But your correct in by ten a problem could definetly exist. Case in point although not a trap but rather a hunting gun I was evaluating gave a clue to this. I was wanting to achieve bonafide 75% or better 40yd patterns with a modified barrel on an 1100-16ga. This involved buffering. First three patterns were 74,77,76%. I've found it, yea. Fourth pattern dropped to 54%. First three were putting 120 plus pellets in core. Fourth 64. That's half!

    WPT, to what degree do you seek absolution? I mean exact perfection or relative? What your asking is substantial. We need a wager. Will you accept results from afar or I'd this need done in Az? Just asking, not that I can prove.
     
  10. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,845
    WPT, as you know I've read this specific thought from you (though it usually refers to "holes" in patterns not being in the same place) for 20 years now. I think that it is finally time to break my silence.

    Actually, when you talk about holes, as you recently (three times in the last week?) have, I think you are right. Of course to some extent it's a straw man argument; rarely does anyone claim that that holes _are_ in the same place **, but your correct observation, that they aren't, is what first alerted me to problems with Oberfell and Thompson's "patches" and their promise to rate shotguns in terms of their patterning "quality."

    I made data sheets that now look absurd to me in their spurious precision and incredible complication, but, quick learner that I am, I gave up tracking patches before sundown on the first day. It's just as you say, they aren't in the same place and, in fact, the number in any pattern is clearly about random - none in these 5 patterns but three in this one.

    I had no reason to know it, of course, but patches had already been debunked for almost a century (Journee, cited by Brindle). That's why it was such a delight to find the website linked above, shotgunpattern dot net. Like the undead, some things just keep coming back. (For the record, the number of patches in a pattern is determined, in the long run, by the number of pellets in it and nothing else. And that's why you should shoot the smallest-size pellets which will very reliably break a piece off a target with just one pellet-hit.)


    But back to your most recent post. I must say I can't follow the logic of it at all. I think you must have misunderstood what your father was trying to do, since his second pattern would have proven to him that (no) "two patterns that are exactly alike." Isn't that obvious? It was to your father, I promise you.

    He also knew that there is no such thing as a "perfect pattern," which is why that Greener pattern leading off Jones' article draws so much interest and opprobrium. It _is_ a perfect pattern - and there aren't any.

    Yes, my "charts prove that shells are inconsistant and there are no two exactly the same." But here's the part of your argument I don't understand. So what?

    You seem to think the specifics of a pattern should guide where I put my shot. "Not being able to adjust on the run for pattern variations" (and other, earlier posts) imply that. And that's just nonsensical. The only rational plan to follow is to try to put the center of the pattern (no matter how the pellets are distributed, specifically) on the target. Sometimes you will hit it with a lot of pellets, more often fewer, sometimes just one, or even none at all when you are shooting a cold hand.

    It makes no difference at all that the patterns are not "the same." All they can be is "similar." And only serious patterning can tell you if your patterns are similarly "good" or similarly "not so good."

    It has nothing at all to do with where you shoot, only with how likely you are to put up a winning score.

    Yours in Sport,

    Neil

    ** Except for a recent thread on the friendliest site where a poster had noticed that his Muller choke was putting pellet-free patches all in the same place, the upper right if you remember correctly. Jimmy just sent him a new choke, which is what I would have done. I just hope he got the old one back. If it really did as stated, it would be the equivalent of winning the lottery for a chokemaker, a mechanical clue as to what causes "patches" (other than pellet-count, that is.)
     
  11. W.P.T.

    W.P.T. TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    8,371
    Pheasantmaster,

    I contend that patterning is an absolute waste of time, no absolution needed from here, there, or anywhere ... Need a wager, on what ..? If the wager is realistic and on something that is proveable to my satisfaction by agreement, hell yes ... Neal stated that it was obvious to my father that no two pattersn are alike, I knew that without patterning anything so I knew what my father got to know by patterning before he even was convinced of it, hole or no hole in the patterns ...

    Neil,

    I knew exactly what my father was trying to do and I stated to him on may occasions that what he was looking for does not exist therefore he will never find it no matter how precise he is in his loading trying to get the same thing or reasonably close twice ... The results he came up with after painstakingly loading boxes and boxes of shells as close to exactly the same was a waste of time and efforts ... I told him to shoot new shells and hope for the best which is what he finally ended up doing after he patterned them and found the inconsistancy was no better or worse than his perfectly loaded reloads ... I have to laugh at you saying after 20 years you finally broke your silence when we both know you have been very opinionated and never lacking for something to say be it right, wrong, or otherwise and that you could prove it, be that as it may ... So, that has not changed in that 20 years and much like you and I, it just gets older as time passes by ... Not that it matters but at least we agree there are no two shells alike but can be simular to some degree ... Thank you, you made and proved my point ... Respectfully, WPT ... (YAC) ...
     
  12. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,845
    Well, WPT, I guess that just shows that you came by your powers of analysis legitimately; I just didn't think there could be two of you. Sorry for the confusion; I take all references to your father back with apologies.

    Neil
     
  13. W.P.T.

    W.P.T. TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    8,371
    Thankyou Neil, you proved my point once again ... 20 years, Yeah right ... WPT ... (YAC) ...
     
  14. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,845
    You are welcome, WPT, but even after reading so many of your posts like your first one here I feel I've missed the most important part.

    Can you tell us why the fact that patterns never put pellets in the exact same place makes any difference?

    Neil
     
  15. W.P.T.

    W.P.T. TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    8,371
    Neil,

    It does not make a difference as long as the density exists in any pattern to break the target ... Thats pretty much the point I have tried to make time and time again ... You must of missed that part, being as I know that I had mentioned it a time or three, it surprises me that you would miss anything ... You seem to exhibit a very condesending attitude toward anyone who does not agree with you from what I have seen or witnessed over the past 20 years, probably just my imagination ... You and I will just have to agree to disagree and thats alright, keeps life interesting ... Have a good day ... Don't hold back for another 20 years, say what you mean and mean what you say ... Respectfully, WPT ... (YAC) ...
     
  16. Stl Flyn

    Stl Flyn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    8,691
    I still think that trap is 95% mental aspect, and 5% physical. After the analysis theories of which have been posted, I now think it absolutely will be 100% mental from now on.

    Although the analysis theories above have some merit, it still seems to me that when I concentrate on the target, and follow through to the fullest extent of my abilities, the target breaks. If there is even just the slightest lack of either, when I hear LOSS, I seem to know the reason why it happened. This is after a gun is fit, and adjusted for POI, of course.

    Confidence seems to be the equalizer. Maybe the analysis provided does that, at least temporarily. To say that just because the patterning can be adjusted to the point that you can gain a bird here or there, is such a small part of the whole equation, to me only takes away from the most important part of the shooting aspect, CONCENTRATION, and follow through of the swing.

    Paralysis by over-analysis, I think it is called. LOL. I always wondered why I see guys walking around in circles at the club, talking to themselves. They always seem to be the guys that are ALWAYS talking about or blaming, different chokes, loads, barometric pressures, etc.

    I am not saying it does not make a difference. I just wonder sometimes of which way that difference swings. Just shoot the damn bird! JMHO.

    I guess what I am trying to say is, for the top 1% of the shooters in the world, that can concentrate and follow through, on every target like their life depends on it, the analysis of the patterns and such make a difference. For all the rest of us, if we do not concentrate and follow through on every bird like our life depends on it, we will miss the bird completely anyway and the pattern, gun fit, POI, would not make a difference. Jon
     
  17. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,845
    But..but..but...WPT! That's just the opposite of what you wrote just above! You've always said said that the problem was that pellets (or holes or whatever) are never in the same exact places, now it's "as long as the density exists in any pattern to break the target."

    Change that to "as long as the density exists in the center of most of your patterns to break the target" and we are in perfect agreement. Never mind that to know that you would have to count some patterns. At least you are back on our planet, statistically speaking, so we will just agree to agree, OK?

    Neil
     
  18. Hap MecTweaks

    Hap MecTweaks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,226
    Location:
    Mesquite, Nevada
    It doesn't surprise me that some shooters will buy a new gun and start banging away at clays. Some get lucky, some don't. After shooting thousands of targets and can't shoot decent scores, off it goes to a another buyer! I won't waste my money shooting a gun that doesn't have a decent pattern to begin with!! Unless you've had a bad patterning shotgun, you know of not what you speak??

    Hap
     
  19. W.P.T.

    W.P.T. TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    8,371
    Neil,

    I have always taken for granted that the highest percentage of pellets would be in the center of the pattern based (Hot Spot) on what I have seen in the past 35 or so years ... If it is not I can see where there would or could be a problem ... My Father took notice to any and every hole in the pattern on the pattern sheets, I told him that they did not matter because the shot was continually moving and it wouldn't be there a milisecond sooner or later ... What would be the chances a target would be at that precise spot right at that precise instant and make it without being hit ..? I said and say slim to none (more like none) to appease him and not nullify his findings ... The guns I have taken to the pattern board (grease sheet) over the years to check for point of aim /point of impact have always showed a hot spot in the center of the pattern or what I believed to be the center of the pattern based on where I shot and where it hit there was an obvious fringe outside of the 22/24 inch center of the pattern ... That 22/24 inch (may of been slightly more) is a guess because I didn't actually measure it but that was what I was most concerned with ... Thanks for the stimulating exchange, it was fun ... Respectfully, WPT ... (YAC) ...
     
  20. MikeInNPR

    MikeInNPR Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    Messages:
    268
    Because i have nothing else to do atm i submit that when i use light 7.5 from 16 yard line i get at least 30% more smoke!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.