Actually he refers to one book, plus two other sets of data. (Neil's and his own) And there is a lot of actual real-world testing in all that data. Not theoretical physics. Actual testing, done as scientifically as possible as one can with such a imperfect projectile delivery system as shotgunning.Tim, you keep referring to one book, one set of data, set with an internal bias by the author. I'm not discounting it, but I've read a lot of stuff on this and am not an idiot. It's not non-sense. What is is a target not slowing down it's rate of spin - that would only be true in a vacuum. They slow down - physics says so. It's an exponential function where the rate of spin drops rapidly at first and tapers to zero spin. Happens with ALL spinning projectiles and I have 30+ years testing military artillery to back up my non-sense. The reason long range projectiles are accurate is because they are fin-stabilized, not rifled (M1A1 is a smooth bore 125-mm). ALL flying, spinning projectiles slow their rate of rotation, and once they do they being to tumble end over end. Throw a target far enough and it will become unstable and act like a feather in the wind once centripetal force is overcome by other forces such as drag. And yes, a fast spinning target is easier to break than a slow spinning target along a fracture line - again, physics says so.
And I never said pattern testing is non sense. I said the impact of pellets on a static target at a fixed range can be misleading as to holes in the pattern. How about actually reading what I wrote.
The amount of spin lost by targets over their flight is inconsequential. Your Artillery reference falls short because the flight of clay pigeons is dominated by aerodynamics, not ballistics, like a tank shell. They fly more like a Frisbee, though launched at much higher velocity, and are much more dense.
Patterns are three-dimensional, and patterning on paper does not show this, true. My suggestion for testing in all three dimensions is below.
Cut open one each of your 7 1/2 and 8 loads and mic all the shot. You may be surprised at what you find.Don't understand any of that but I guess my response is I always thought the mixed shot stuff ( they called them Duplex loads I think )was just a gimmick to sell something .
I think Tim knows a bit about physics also. I don't think anyone is saying a target doesn't slow down spinning at all. But Neil's actual research showed no more than 3%, which for the short flight time and distance is inconsequential. 3% of 2000 rpm would slow the spin rate to a lackadasical 1940 rpm. This changes nothing, especially since the only birds shot just before touching the ground at the max range of 51 yards are during Annie Oakleys and other such games.Explain how it is misleading? And what kind of test would be better? And what kind of testing you've done to show this.
I told you the test - spinning pattern boards. They have been done. Look them up. Read what I wrote. I don't care what Neil said, physics says air drag slows rotation of ANY flying, spinning object. Take a physics class.
Screw your precious book - write your own. Mine was called a dissertation.
I think the best testing would be high-speed photography of a shot column fired at and hitting, and of a near miss, (pushing a bird) from several angles, studied frame for frame.
Googling spinning pattern boards got me nothing about spinning pattern boards. Just regular patterning. Care to provide a link? If they really worked (or exsisted) , don't you think most of us, and Tim in particular, would have heard of them?