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

Luck component ?

Discussion in 'Shooting Related Threads' started by Hammer1, Dec 9, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Hammer1

    Hammer1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,607
    .

    Assume a properly tuned gun with a Full choke, Remington STS shells with 3 dram 1-1/8 ounce load of # 7½ shot...

    The best 27 yard shooter currently available...

    What is the likelihood that a properly centered 27 yard shot pattern will have a hole in it big enough for the flying clay target to not be hit by a single pellet and therefore the $100,000 Handicap Challenge at the Grand American is lost by bad luck ?

    .
     
  2. Oregunner

    Oregunner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,441
    Location:
    Oregon
    Daro Handy has the long run record from 27 yards with 505 straight. That's a pretty good run without any holes in the pattern. Mark
     
  3. Hammer1

    Hammer1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,607
    .

    Wonder about that 506th shot ?

    .
     
  4. OldGoat

    OldGoat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,843
    Location:
    Overland Park KS
    Great question...seriously! Looking forward to seeing the responses from statisticians who can explain this....gotta be fun to hear. Let's see...the target is "x" in size; a 20" pattern is "y" in size; there are ##s 7.5 pellets in a 1 1/8 load; the gun shoots an 85% pattern....so it takes somebody smarter than me to figure it out.

    Oh, did you hear about the constipated mathematician? He worked it out with a pencil. :eek:( Bad. Regards, Ed
     
  5. goose2

    goose2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Messages:
    2,031
    Hammer, I think there is quite a bit of luck in trap shooting. Therefor there could be quite a bit of bad luck also. Which is where my shooting falls in.
     
  6. Hammer1

    Hammer1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,607
    .

    In my personal shooting...

    I think I accidently break more targets than I accidently miss.

    .
     
  7. crusha

    crusha TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,762
    If you run some of the popular programs like Shotshell ballistics for Windows, etc. and analyze this, they predict the probability of missing due to target holes is actually pretty good at that distance. (In fact, it predicts it's scarily high at closer distances with less than full choke). Which means, the good shooters likely shoot several "back fence straights" in terms of pointing the shotgun, for every real one they get credit for on paper.


    Incidentally, I never bring it up unless one of his hometown buds mentions it here first, but...the above-mentioned was also considered to be one of the most notorious target-refusers in history, in the days before voice calls. Your "records" mean little to your peers if you have a reputation of being a cheater. Look up the record of accomplishments. He's certainly a better shooter than myself and most folks here. But it's also all averages, streaks...stuff done in the sunshine during regulation...lots of money won in the regular program...but no trophies under the lights against the best of the best? Most top shooters with those kinds of averages and streaks have some kind of ring to show for it, won in shootoff conditions with ATA officials watching. Why is that? And we know he was there...we saw him every year, in the payout lists.


    Is it because when three ATA officials are standing behind you in the shootoff, you have to shoot every angle that comes out of the trap - even the hard ones? Hmmm?
     
  8. W.P.T.

    W.P.T. TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    8,367
    The shot string is multi dimensional and changes every milisecond once fired, if there is a hole in the pattern in one particular spot it probably won't be a milisecond later ... WPT ... (YAC) ...
     
  9. Avaldes

    Avaldes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,874
    Location:
    Central Coast of California
    It is important to understand that a pattern on paper is a representation of the best performance you can possibly get. The first shot in that video shows that. The 3 dimensionality of the pattern CAN make it seem less dense. You have to ask yourself if a pattern travelling at 600 miles per hour acts 3 dimensionally when compared to a target going 30 something miles per hour.
     
  10. JACK

    JACK Well-Known Member Supporting Vendor

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    15,192
    Location:
    NW Wisconsin
    so close to zero, that you needn't consider the question further. If it were possible to bet on this question and outcome, I'd sign up for the local casino
     
  11. W.P.T.

    W.P.T. TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    8,367
    Avaldes,

    "It is important to understand that a pattern on paper is a representation of the best performance you can possibly get."

    That is not always true, the density of the shot all comes together at that point ... The target does not stop, so if it was the pattern board it would keep moving until it ran out of velocity and the changes would continue until they hit the board at some point ...

    At that particular spot or point of impact which is when the shot string quits being multi dimensional and becomes static (one dimension) because it stops at that point and all the pellets catch up to the others that make up the string ... Respectfully, WPT ... (YAC) ...
     
  12. Barry C. Roach

    Barry C. Roach Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,425
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    Like WPT says. It's damn near impossible. The speed of the target adds to the near impossible chance that it can wiggle through a "centered pattern" with all the pieces of shot moving at well over super sonic speeds.
     
  13. crusha

    crusha TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,762
    As was said above, the 2D paper print simply gives the best-case estimate of what the pattern is capable of. And I don't believe the ballistics programs are wrong when they predict it can, and does, happen, even at distances less than 27 yards.


    If you don't believe me, go set up a pattern paper at the distance handicap targets are shot, fire one shell into it, and tell me a target can't get through what you see.


    ...are we really going to have to have Neil Winston come straighten you people out? (I can already tell he's been gone too long).
     
  14. crusha

    crusha TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,762
    Rick B. (deleted)...All I remember Neil saying on the subject is that hot centers are the natural way of things, based on the Gaussian distribution, and we can't do a thing about it anyway, and people who say they can are quacks, and why would we want to, anyhow?


    I think the conclusion that was arrived at, was that you are relying on a hot center to break your birds at 27, and if you ain't got it, you ain't gonna win much.
     
  15. Barry C. Roach

    Barry C. Roach Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,425
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    buzz. The only way you can be correct is if all the shot reaches the target at exactly the same time. A wall of shot, if you please and if the target stop in flight at precisely the same instant. Remember, we are talking about the center of the pattern.
     
  16. crusha

    crusha TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,762
    Barry,


    You know those pattern holes are there on paper. They are not a figment of our imagination; they exist, at different times and places along the time (or distance) coordinate of the shot's flight. So the only way you can be right, is if you can demonstrate shot pellets moving forward at 400 miles an hour can _never_ pass any target before the target can move laterally (at a fraction of that speed) out of one of those two-dimensional "holes" we know exist in a slice of a three-dimensional pattern, and into the path of a pellet. And that those crazy pellets will always continue to reliably act in the precise manner most beneficial to the shooter every, single, time, without fail.


    Because remember, for me to be right, the hole only has to appear and miss a bird one time. But for you to be right, the "lateral target movement" phenomenon must occur every single time, without fail, and always in the direction that most benefits the shooter. If it fails during one single observation - one single time a straightaway hovers with no apparent lateral movement, as a "hole zone" passes by it - your case is shot, no pun intended.


    Lightning strikes just one time = my theory is right.

    Lightning never, ever strikes = your theory is right.


    Them's long odds. And remember, the "lateral movement" phenomenon cuts both ways: in the same way it can "erase" a hole where one just existed, it can also "create" a hole in 2D space where a pellet had been, one instant earlier along the time (or distance) coordinate.


    To put the probabilities in a different perspective, let's look at it this way: forget "smooth continuous functions" and the Gaussian Distribution. You know that at "some" distance, my "theory" becomes correct. At, say, 200 yards distance, the well-pointed pattern will miss the target, much of the time (not considering the loss of velocity, which will cause even a hit to fail to break the bird). As you move closer and closer to the shooter, the probability of a hit with a well-aimed shot increases to practically 100%. So, all we are really talking about here, is what distance that occurs. It's not a qualitative argument of "you're right, I'm wrong," because you know that at _some_ distance, my theory becomes true nearly 100% of the time. All we're trying to determine, is how far out, quantitatively, you have to be before that probability of a hit drops below 100%.


    And viewed in that light, as you can see, your argument becomes demonstrably and undeniably weaker. The Nasty Unthinkable becomes true at some distance, without doubt. You and I cannot measure this distance practically, with camera and yardstick, but, there is at least one ballistics software program put together by ballisticians who've devoted their life's work to this science, which predicts that at the distance 27 yard targets are commonly engaged, the unthinkable deed has already happened, and the probability of a hit with a well-pointed shot has dropped below 100%. That's not to say 100 straights from 27 can't be achieved, mind you...only that 100 perfect points will not result in 100 on the score sheet, 100 times out of 100. And when you consider that not every pellet which hits a target results in a break (observe all those intact birds out there on the ground with holes in them), it gets even tougher for our hypothetical 27 yard shooter seeking riches and glory.


    And it just means those guys hitting those 100s from 27 are damn, damn, DAMN good, and in fact, damn-gooder than we even realize, once we put some mathematically-informed analysis to it. It means they very likely "point" more 100s than show up on the score sheet. And it also means, more controversially, that those who think we need farther concrete markers on the firing line, to reduce the Big Dogs to less than 100% chance of winning on their best day, don't realize that nature and statistics have actually already granted their wish - it's just that the Big Dogs still out-skill their inferiors anyway, with more frequency than some would prefer.
     
  17. Barry C. Roach

    Barry C. Roach Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,425
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    Buzz. Drivel.
     
  18. crusha

    crusha TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,762
    Barry. It's a friendly discussion. Convince me.
     
  19. Setterman

    Setterman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    11,984
    If you shoot fast enough, your choke will always be tight enough.

    But then(the tough part), you also have to be on the bird.

    It also helps to shoot umpteen thousand birds a year.
     
  20. Barry C. Roach

    Barry C. Roach Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,425
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    Buzz - I'm quite sure that I could never convince you. I have already stated my opinion and I'm convinced that it is more correct that yours since you refuse to acknowledge a three dimensional model. If you center a target with shot string traveling at super sonic speeds and a target is flying through that center of shot at a speed of 30-35 M.P.H. it's going it be hit by enough shot to break it under ordinary conditions. In fact the target will be smoked.

    Now it may get hit by several shot and not break. That I'll buy. I have seen targets with as many as 9 holes in them and a single shot even lodged in that same target and the target didn't break and was scored loss but a target flying through a centered shot string untouched stretches my credulity beyond belief.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.