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

NEIL WINSTON - MODIFIED CHOKE

Discussion in 'Shooting Related Threads' started by rich A, Dec 22, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. rich A

    rich A TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    58
    NEIL, the February issue of the Shooting Times magazine has what appears to be a very good discussion on chokes and the "killing" patern at different yardages. Would it be possible for you to read this article and offer up your view on the results of the tests conducted. The proper choke or constriction is a subject trapshooters struggle with all the time.
     
  2. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,852
    Shooting Times is from GB, isn't it? There may still be a Barnes and Noble stocking it; I'll see.

    Neil
     
  3. brent375hh

    brent375hh TS Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    292
    The Shooting Times magazine that is a sister publication of Guns & Ammo?
     
  4. Unknown1

    Unknown1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    Messages:
    3,404
    "Shooting Times" is the sister to "Guns and Ammo".

    "Shooting Times and Country" is a British sporting gun publication.

    MK
     
  5. Quack Shot

    Quack Shot Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,003
    They will probably have the article posted by mext month's issue release. Mash the link above.
     
  6. rich A

    rich A TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    58
    Shooting Times is a periodical and the article is in the 2010 February issue. The article is "Get Your Head In The Clouds" by Terry Wieland. The artical address understanding shotgun chokes and patterns. They talk about shot strings not being a cone, but going more into a cylinder with a modified choke, holding a "killing" shot cylinder to longer yardages.

    Dick Anderson
     
  7. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,852
    Oh man, I've got to get this! It's supposed to sock in for days starting tomorrow, so it's off the a different B&N for another try.

    Neil
     
  8. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,852
    I found the article and found it interesting. It's about Gil and Vicki Ash's theory of chokes, based on a lot of work they have done. It's led them to make a lot of visual aids and that's a good thing - as long as the story they tell is true. And what they have to say is, in a few words:

    "The real surprise, to me at least and, I believe, to most other shotgunners, is the performance of Modified. The pattern spreads steadily from the muzzle until, at 25 yards, it is a good 25-inch killing pattern. It then maintains this outer killing pattern for a full 20 yards, neither spreading further nor deteriorating, and giving excellent performance from 25 to 45 yards, and a still-creditable 20 inches way out there at 50 yards."

    I must say I don't see how that works, but I don't yet know.

    I won't have much to say about the rest of the article for a couple of reasons.

    1. I haven't patterned modified chokes. I tried, thinking the 0.023 choke in an MX-2000 would be modified, but it shot "full" so that particular experiment didn't work. But as I said in Brian d'Oregon's thread, I have several 0.020 chokes already and it's my spring project. By June/July I should have a better idea if they are right.

    2.It's hard to say how much of this is Terry Weiland, how much Gil and Vicki, and how much they would like to add or explain but couldn't because this is a magazine, not a book.

    Their theory of pattern-change as yardage increases (or chokes open up) is that is that the core density is unchanged, only the outer part thickens or thins out.

    Referring to the inner 15 inches, "Choke does not affect this "core" pattern only the pellets around outside" (page 61)

    These are all testable contentions, but in fairness I must say there's a lot of data to contradict that, for example Marshall William's April 1996 article in Shotgun Sports. which said just about the opposite and backed it up with about 100 published tests in American Rifleman.

    I doubt they said this, for example "If you center your pattern on your target, it will make no difference whether your choke is cylinder or full." They talk a lot about 40 and 50-yard shooting, and at those distances I don't see how they can mean that.

    If the article has a fault, its that it is like all the patterning articles I've read recently, that is, there are no patterns, It's all talk, talk, talk with no concrete data so we can judge for ourselves whether the argument being promoted makes any sense. Pair that with no useful definition of the critical variable,
    "killing pattern" and it's a pretty thin gruel, by and large.

    There was enough to spark my interest, though. Doubting that Terry has half done justice to Gil and Vicki's theory, I ordered the DVD for the high cost of $60 including shipping and for a price like that it had better be good! For example, they had better define "killing pattern" beyond all we read here:

    "First, they determined the concentration of pellets per square inch that denotes a "killing" pattern."

    Next summer we should know if they are on to something; after all it's been called "the first really original finding on chokes and patterns . . . in the last 20 years" and that should be pretty easy to test.

    Neil
     
  9. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,852
    I'd like to add a little to the above.

    When I read an article like Terry's, I often look for a "linchpin," the one thing the whole rest of the article depends on. Just thinking of the last three articles I read, I can see three assertions we are given no more than sentence about and, apparently, told to believe it. But in so many cases, if _that's_ wrong, then the rest of the story is complete imagination.

    Take this one here. It's about a choke's ability to maintain "killing" patterns at long distances (and a good deal more, as well). But all we are told about what they are talking about is ""First, they determined the concentration of pellets per square inch that denotes a "killing" pattern." Now if they had given any numbers at all we could have moused over to Andrew's Pattern Optimizer and checked their story. But without any numbers, we have to start every sentence in the article with the mental reservation "If they are right . . ."

    You can do the same with Tim Woodhouse's latest two. In one, he has two over-and-unders one with a larger bore than the the other. He tests shot speed (How? "Accurately" we are told, but thats all) and the bigger bore was faster. But he had four barrels, not two, so why compare these two and what did the other two do? Clearly, the whole story hinges on the shot-speed difference but we only got half the story. When I see an obvious question like that unanswered, I get suspicious.

    In the other, we are told that it takes, in a number he labels as "arbitrary," 0.75 ft-lb of energy to break a target. If that number is wrong, he's got no article.

    Can it really be that simple? Of all the ways a target can be hit with all the possible shot sizes and so on - there's just one number that covers them all? All the time? Not 95 percent of the time, that would change the whole argument. All the time. And all you have to say is that one number and we are supposed to accept all the rest?

    Next time you read a shotgun article and want to have a bit of fun, keep that in mind: Is there one thing that _has_ to be true for all the rest to work? And has he or she given us any reason to think _that's_ true beyond "saying so?"

    Neil
     
  10. Smok'n Joe

    Smok'n Joe Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,730
    Neil,

    Looking forward to reading more on this topic.

    We've discussed choke performance on many occassions. I have no documentation to offer, but my gut feel from recent personal experience with choke tubes is that a MODIFIED EXTENDED choke tube seems to perform more like what we might expect from a FULL INTERNAL choke tube. There may very well be merit to the manufactures assertions that credit the increased amount of parallel in the extended tubes.

    Although I have experienced inconsistencies with my 85TSS, I believe the CARLSON's MODIFED EXTENDED tube that I now have installed is better selection than any of the BRILEY INTERNAL tubes that came with the gun (TRAP Full, Full & Impr Mod). Those Briley's were manufactured to SKB specifications and do produce what appears to be an extremely HOT CORE, but very little peripheral
    hitting power whereas the Carlson Extended tubes seem to produce a more evenly distributed pattern that SMOKES centered targets but also allows for readable breaks on off-centered shots...and a more enjoyable shooting experience.

    Smok'n Joe
     
  11. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,852
    Joe, I think you should take a couple of steps back.

    Your post has the faults of the (professionally written) articles I cited, namely, it cites specific characteristics of various patterns without actually presenting the example patterns such explanations _have to_ be based on. OK, you are more fair than the others, saying outright "I have no documentation to offer" and we'd all be better off if everyone in your position, which is to say, almost everyone on TS.com were so candid.

    You've taken the text on Carlson's website to heart, but gone beyond the claims there. For example, you write ". . . MODIFIED EXTENDED choke tube seems to perform more like what we might expect from a FULL INTERNAL choke tube."

    We really need a couple of examples if we are to credit this at all. Show us a set of patterns from the two kinds of setup which support this idea.

    You will get your ideas tested in May/June, as I have promised elsewhere. Specifically tested, that is, because I just ordered two Carlson's chokes, 0.020 & 0.040 to add to the growing collection awaiting their chance to show their stuff. It looks like I won't have time to shoot much trap in the spring since I'll be hiking back and forth from bench-rest-to-camera-to patternpaper-to-computer-to-TS.com, but the sort of test I plan has been long, long overdue.

    I hope you won't wait til then, though, to answer you own question. Get paper, measure a distance (I suggest 34 yards - these are singles chokes, after all, no matter what Gil and Vicki say) - and get counting. I think you will see after 20 or so why there are so few count-based pattern explanations on TS.com or anywhere else, for that matter.

    Neil
     
  12. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,852
    I don't doubt it, Bill. But that just illustrates the problem (soon to be solved, I hope, the DVD is already on its way!) of what is meant by "killing pattern." I doubt it means "all the time" since you have to go to Cheyenne or Spanish Fork to get them from the 27. So it means "most of the time" but where are they drawing the line? For that matter, where have _you_ drawn the line? "Consistently" could mean about anything (once every 25th target is "consistent, after all) and the need for pellet concentrations drops dramatically once you decide you don't have to break them all. Trapshooter have to live by higher probability standards (and so does George Digweed, or so he says.)

    Neil
     
  13. OLD ONE EYE

    OLD ONE EYE Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,254
    Location:
    Florida / Idaho
    I have to say I am very interested in Neils tests. I have been watching some top sporting clays shooters useing the long parell extended chokes at 50 yards and breaking birds very well with 15th and 20 th choke. The thing that I also observed was they shoot mostly 1250 to 1325 fps loads but seeing is believing but Neils work will be way more accurate and I can not wait to see his findings. I always thought 20th was the right choke for 16 yards and this will put that to rest in my mind.

    Merry Christmas to all TS shooters
    Buddy Walters

    PS thank you Neil for the help you extended to me in getting my stocks back from the company in Georgia I never did thank you for your help it was greatly appreicated.
     
  14. phirel

    phirel TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,556
    The article described patterns shot through a modified choke as spreading between the barrel and the first 25 yards, and then suddenly, the shot stop diverging and become parallel for the next 20 yards or so. I have great difficulty both understanding and accepting this. I am also uncertain about measuring the shot per square inch. It would not be difficult to make a transparent 1 square inch grid, place it over the pattern and get a count per square inch. However, it the grid were moved 1/2 inch in any direction, the count of holes per square inch would change. The distribution of shot in a pattern is random. Trying to quantify a random distribution as a number per unit area with sub sampling is not a good measurement.


    Pat Ireland
     
  15. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,852
    No argument here, Bill.

    Neil
     
  16. wayneo

    wayneo Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,002
    Well I couldn't find anybody that carried Shooting Times, and there is nothing on Terry Weiland's web site about the article. So I was telling a couple of guys at the club about some of the things Neil said about the article. After a lot of laughter whether a modified choke could magically hold a core pattern after thirty five yards, we hung up some paper.

    The biggest argument came as to use hunting loads, or trap loads. I went with the 1-1/8oz., #7-1/2, 1200 fps. Estates. The gun was a 28" Browning GTI, Browning flush modified Invector+ choke. Bottom barrel.

    The 25 yard pattern had a 20" core of 232 pellets.

    The 35 yard had 162, then the core patterns went down hill just like all of us expected.

    The 45 yard had 61 core and 65 outer 30 inch for a total of 126.

    The 50 yard had 59 core 61 outer for a total of 120.

    Yes, its only four patterns, but we wanted to see what we already knew. A MOD choke blows up after 35 yards. Now maybe things would change with hunting loads, or using steel shot, I don't know. But its to cold to do anymore with patterns. Thanks for looking, Wayne
    [​IMG]



    [​IMG]



    [​IMG]



    [​IMG]
     
  17. Dr A C Jones

    Dr A C Jones Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    367
    Wayne, If you go the Pattern Optimiser (above), put in the total pellet count and adjust the spread to give the pellet count inside the 20-inch circle you counted, it will tell you the likelihood of hitting a target of given size (edge-on clay is approx 4-sq inches, trap-view, about 5-sq inches and a face-on clay about 12-sq inches).


    It's not as hopeless as you might think based on looking at the patterns.


    Andrew.
     
  18. wayneo

    wayneo Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,002
    Andrew, your exactly right, for clays. But I assume the article is talking about hunting, the "killing pattern". So if your using #4, #5, or #6 shot, your patterns at 45 and 50 yards would be pretty thin. Wayne
     
  19. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,852
    Are we looking at the same Pattern optimizer? When I put in 400 as the number of pellets in the load, 85 for a reasonable number of 0-20 inch-area pellets, I get a 75% spread of almost 50 inches and a P of a single-pellet hit of about 75 on a trap target.

    Am I doing this right?

    Neil
     
  20. Dr A C Jones

    Dr A C Jones Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    367
    Neil, Yes. That's pretty much what I put in too. I think 75% hit rate given what the pattern (both simulated and Wayne's) looks like is surprising. Note also how many times a single pellet would strike the target, and how few times two or more would. If people are breaking clay's at this distance, the chances are it's just one pellet. This in turn of course neuters the argument for "multiple pellet strikes" and "reading the breaks", but you already knew that!


    If you double the target size (more game like) and half the pellet count (more game shell like) you get the same result. It shows you can put lead in the game at long range, whether you kill it or not is another matter of course.


    Andrew.

    (really should be packing now)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Search tags for this page

are all choke tubes hot cored

,

chokes neilwinston

,

gil and vicki ash chokes

,

gil ash on chokes

,

gil ash shotgun choke pattern boards

,

gilash wafar

,

modified choke for trap shooting

,

neil winston choke comparison