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

Question for Neil Winston

Discussion in 'Uncategorized Threads' started by mad frank, Feb 12, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mad frank

    mad frank TS Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2007
    Messages:
    57
    Hi Neil, I was wondering if you might be willing to tell what your favorite reload recipe would be for 16 yd targets, and do you use them for any of your patterning experiments?

    Frank Maglin
     
  2. DTrykow

    DTrykow Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,542
    Another question for Neil. Now that Rollin is temp out of commis. I'm confident Rollin will pull thru his mishap and get to publishing again. But are you going to publish your POI data, etc for us to have? I know you've put most of your findings up on TS.com but having it all in one spot/download/pamphlet would be really handy. Any thoughts? Dave T.
     
  3. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,848
    Frank, I'm taking a break from my Pact Powder dispenser and single-stage loader making seven-eighths ounce shells, two wads (Grey and 12SO), fifteen and seventeen grains which give a bit under 1200 and a bit over 1300 fps. They are for my first patterning test comparing wads, and they will be followed by a three wad test with one-ounce shells loaded and donated by Ron Baker. I don't have any idea what to expect from either of these tests - though I'll be quite surprised if the patterns differ significantly - or, indeed, at all. I'll test them from the lower barrel of a old Perazzi at 34 yards to simulate 16-yard shooting.

    For 16 yards, I must confess, I load what's dustiest on the shelf. Pheasantmaster showed me that Green Dot will put a dozen more pellets on the paper, but I haven't replicated that so I call it demonstrated but still hard to believe. The thing is, with my pretty-tight Allor barrel any load at all puts "enough" pellets in the pattern to assure a broken target and so patterning for singles is not a priority.

    For handicap I use Federal Papers from a lot I saved several flats of. They seem to give about any barrel its best chance to perform and are a known baseline which has proven repeatable for two years with no measurable change. That's what you need for this kind of experiment.

    Dave, assuming I live long enough, it'll all be in a book, not just what I've put up here but all kinds of new and controversial stuff. But first I have to establish some distance between myself and the ATA - a couple of years at least - that's just being fair to the association. Who knows, I may be the next Jim Russell!

    I hope Rollin works things out. I've read Yardley, the second edition too, and Rollin is just as good if not better, at least in the specialized world of trap. I'm going to have to ask Stackpole Books for permission to redraw a couple of graphs from Don Butler's book; I hope they will be cooperative.

    Neil

    Neil
     
  4. Bob Hawkes

    Bob Hawkes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,904
    Charlie, How good is your mind?? Perception is everything! I most certainly would not want to contradict Mr. Digweed on anything, but I do know that I have "perceived some differences" between some of my reloads, and Lord only knows what went out the end of the barrel. LOL, Bob
     
  5. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,848
    Did I say that, Charlie? The shot is leaving the full choke faster, so I wouldn't rule it out.

    But here's how one would test it. Take a choke-tube gun and have a second experimenter switch chokes in a psuedo-random fashion according to a predetermined rota and your task is to tell if in a set of twenty shots (ten comparisons) the kick is different. I've done some of that with powder charges one grain apart and I couldn't tell; the other tester couldn't tell, and my bet is no one can tell. It's hard for me to believe that the full choke can make as much difference as a grain of powder but who knows? This is yet another way to chip away at that art vs science difference in shotgunning you like so much. Science can answer questions like that; art can't.

    I'll add this. I was POI testing last week and one of the guns was a backbored over and under. Compared to the singles I was testing, it was a vicious kicker. The stocks were similar, I don't know anything about the weight, but there was something there, something that the A/B test I described I think would come out as "different" to a significant outcome. I'll chronograph it when I get time, weigh it, change stocks, whatever it takes to find out what the difference is related to. By the way, the chokes are not particularly tight. So guns, as far as I am concerned, can kick differently, but I'm equally sure that there is a reason. That reason may be choke, may be something else, but it is something.

    The reason I don't much worry who likes what I do is that I mostly just report the results of experiments and leave the explanations to someone else. Sure, I hate it when people try to change the subject, for example when I show two patterns are similar they tell me that if I'd measured shot-strings they would have been different. The have no more idea about shot-strings than Mr. Russell, but at least I think few would claim to be able to produce a "forward convex shot pattern" by tilting the gun.

    All in all, I'll take my chances. Besides, as a few here have learned, I can "complain, and insult and deride" with the best of 'em.

    Neil
     
  6. mad frank

    mad frank TS Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2007
    Messages:
    57
    Neil, Thanks for sharing your information with us. I look forward to hear about your results with the 7/8 and 1 oz loads.
    Frank Maglin
     
  7. phirel

    phirel TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,556
    Neil- I was impressed with your comment about "art vs science" you made above. Science can provide us with repeatable data we can work with. Art, or perception, is so different among different shooters that comparisons and conclusions based on this are impossible to analyze and support.

    Artistic questions consider "good or bad" and scientific questions are answered with "true or false". The two approaches are totally incompatible, but we try to use them a synonymous when we look at shooting questions.

    Pat Ireland
     
  8. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,848
    Hogwash, Charlie. I referred to it, even credited it to you:

    "This is yet another way to chip away at that art vs science difference in shotgunning you like so much. "

    Plagiarizing is appropriating intellectual property without attribution (or, sometimes, permission.) I've not done it here. See link above.

    OK, I trust you are joking, and are just satirizing the worst thing about TS.com. - the lack of intellectual rigor - to say nothing of the honesty - of so many of the posters here. And thus demonstrating what I'm in for when my book hits the NYT list.

    You are, aren't you?

    Neil

    PS Did you get permission from Bob Brister to use the idea "Art and Science?"
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.