POI @13 Yds is just that

Patterning at 35 yards will show you POI and MOST importantly the Choke or Choke Tube performance which is the Target Breaking Ability, ALL choke tubes perform differently, You've heard the MONDAY day of Mfgr Quote!!

The same happens w/Cars & Choke Tubes. I got a BRILEY that shot off specs, & They gladly EXCHANGED it for me at the San Antonio Shoot on the SPOT.

So do not be MISLEAD by the 13 yds test.

Gary Bryant...................................Dr.longshot

 

Thanks Gary, but I will stick with Neil's 13 yard procedure.

 

I will stock with the 13 to 15 yd test. But shoot 2 shots to get a good POI. Then go to 35 or 40 to get choke patterns!

 

I use the Phil Kiner method...screw the patterning board. Read your breaks and do what you have to do to center punch each target. I would only use a patterning board if my shooting suddenly falls of the cliff, then I will check the pattern to see if the barrel is bent or something.

 

As I kept building higher ribs and combs the problem of cast off became more of a problem then how high it was shooting. Thats where the 13 yd shooting let me fine tune the correct amount of cast 0ff to be built into the stock. Kept adding cast off until I could blow out the center of the + at 10/13 yds. Then move out to 35 yds.
Have not shot since Ohio st shoot due to spinal cord injury and surgery. Maybe next year.

 

Shotgun shells are like snow flakes, there are no two that are exactly alike, so there are no two that will ever pattern exactly alike ... The Pattern good or bad will only give you the Static results at that particular spot not before or after (multidimensional) so its virtually meaningless in figuring out how to eliminate any holes in the pattern by adding or lessening choke constriction ... The odds of that hole being in another pattern in the same exact place is ZERO ... Kiners method will give you the desired information ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

The post above this makes so many mistakes that I hardly know where to start.

Why do so many people believe any of this? It's just because patterning done the way everyone does it - shooting a couple of shots at some unmeasured distance and looking at the results and finding it impossible to tell anything - it makes the task of learning anything about your patterns look hopeless. And it is unless you are willing to do the huge work to find out what's happening. In the following graph, the work has been done for you, that is, the pellets have been counted, and still you just can't tell anything at all for sure. Just looking at the patterns would be a complete waste of time, of course.



But the information is all there if you just know how to organize it.

But first let's consider the quote "Shotgun shells are like snow flakes, there are no two that are exactly alike, so there are no two that will ever pattern exactly alike ..."

The fact that they are not "exactly alike" is no problem; they are similar enough to learn what you want to know.

Every year I buy the shells at the shell house at the Grand and take them home to see who is doing the best job of selling us good handicap shells. I get 1200 fps 7 1/2's or as close as available.

Last year one shell did not shoot well at all, so I retested to see if I'd make a mistake.



I'd made no mistake, this is the way those two shells performed.

The 2017 Grand provided provided shells with very similar results. Again, I did a retest to be sure.



In 2016 I had just used one gun, a Perazzi Mirage, to do both tests. But in 2017 I thought I should change guns for the second test, and used a Perazzi MX3S which I knew was a match for the Mirage. And they did indeed perform just the same.

Now let's go back to the opening post of this thread and read "Patterning at 35 yards will show you POI and MOST importantly the Choke or Choke Tube performance which is the Target Breaking Ability, ALL choke tubes perform differently..."

Above is proof that that's not true. These two guns shoot the same. In fact that old guff about "every gun is a law unto itself" is not true at all. Sure, before Shotgun-Insight made it possible to count pellets with a reasonable amount of work you could never tell if two guns shot the same of not, but now you can and it turns out that guns with the same choke restriction shoot the same (unless there is something wrong with them). I have dozens of tests like this and the sameness of shotgun performance is what stands out, not the differences. By the way, 0.040" chokes work just the same in old-fashioned 0.725" bores and hypermodern o.740" bores too. It's the choke that counts. The only difference is about $15,000.

Say you were going to buy the shells for next year. Should you buy Winchester AA's or Brand X? That's the sort of thing real patterning - measured distance, 10 patterns with counted pellets, similar weather, all the stuff you have to do - will tell you.

We will get to the rest to the above post as time permits.

Yours in Sport,

N1H1

 

Let's move on to

" The Pattern good or bad will only give you the Static results at that particular spot not before or after (multidimensional) so its virtually meaningless in figuring out how to eliminate any holes in the pattern by adding or lessening choke constriction ... The odds of that hole being in another pattern in the same exact place is ZERO"

In which the writer managed to shoehorn four mistakes in only three lines.

Mistake #1,

"The Pattern good or bad will only give you the Static results at that particular spot not before or after (multidimensional) so its virtually meaningless..."

A pattern will be smaller when tested closer, larger when tested farther away, There's no reason to think that these patterns will change places, for example, in reasonable changes of range. Targets shot at 34 yards look like the earlier ones shot at 40 yards, they are just tighter.

Here are modified and extra-full choke tubes in a 391 Beretta with a 0.732" bore shot at 34 yards.



And are a Bowen (0/740" bore) and the bottom barrel of an old Perazzi O/U whose under-barrel had a constriction of 0.023", a bit tighter than modified, again shot at 34 yards.



These guns were tested seven years apart, shooting different (but good) shells, and differ completely in everything but choke-constriction. Look how similarly they shoot! If the writer has evidence that anything (except the pattern percentages, central thickening, and 75% diameter) would have changes in a completely expected ways, where is his evidence?

This holds true for open chokes at 20 yards:



And guns with chokes of similar design pattern similarly:





Mistake #2:

"its virtually meaningless in figuring out how to eliminate any holes in the pattern"

Holes in the pattern are related to the number of pellets in the pattern and chance and nothing else. This has been known
for 100 years. It was tested by John Olin's laboratory in three series of tests and nothing was found to show that holes had anything to do with anything other than the cited variables. You can't eliminate holes if you have commonly used trap-shot sizes.

The guns in that last graph shooting open chokes at 20 yards produced these holes:



Keep in mind that these are "real" holes, that is, of a specific, defined area (and larger). They just randomly appear in a pattern or two, not in the others. Looking at patterns with no standard of area which would define a "hole" is a waste of time, especially since they are due to chance and nothing else.

Mistake #3.

"by adding or lessening choke constriction ..."

This mistake is part of an earlier one and adds something new. It presumes, in error, that you can eliminate holes by adding or lessening constriction and adds the assumption that you can "fix" errant patterns by looking at them and grinding on the choke.

Mistake #4,

"The odds of that hole being in another pattern in the same exact place is ZERO"

First, this is a straw man argument, since no one ever said that holes would be in the same place. The proper response is "So what."

Also, it discloses the fatal weakness of the "holes" argument in total.

When I first got seriously interested in trapshooting I wanted to know everything so I read everything, including Oberfell & Thompson's "The Mysteries of Shotgun Patterns." I believed every word, made up insanely-complicated data sheets, and went out patterning expecting that it would tell me which of my barrels was best, which least good. There was a whole "decision tree" which would lead me right.

By the time I'd shot three patterns, I knew it was a house of cards. Yes, this gun's pattern had two holes in it of 5" diameter, but this second one didn't have any, and this third on a single hole but in a different place then the first one. Clearly, holes were random and not related to the quality of the barrel. And remember, it was barrels that O & T were rating, while in fact barrels shoot the same, generally, as long as they have similar choke (look at all those examples above) and the differences are in the shells, not the hardware.

I'll get to that I think the poster above means by "Kiner's method" after a while, but I'll call it TBR since I don't know that Kiner's method is but I do know what TBR's claim to do.

Yours in Sport,

N1H1

 

N1H1 - Phil Kiner advises that you should adjust your comb height based on how your target breaks until you get smoke. If you have consistently large chunks going up, the gun shoots low (for you) and you should add a spacer little at a time until you get smoke. Vice versa for large chunks going down. This is mainly for POI. I know you advocate that you cannot read breaks so you will not go for this method. I believe it works and that's what I use.

Your discussion above seems to center on pattern not POI.

 

Thanks, Mike J, but in the absence of first-hand input from Phil himself, I obviously can't refer to "his" ideas. So I'll just talk about TBR (Target break reading/Target Break Readers) without assigning the practice or ideas to anyone in particular. Maybe tomorrow.

 

"input" like this ..... no thanks

 

Mike J.
I do not know nor do I care what N1H1 said about anything when it comes to patterning, point of impact or anything else he chooses to debate ... I can tell you if you egg him on there will be charts, graphs, books, tapes, quotes, and so on to support his position if its right or wrong ... N1H1 thinks he is the only one with any knowledge of trap shooting/shotgun shells/reloading etc. and can prove what he knows because he is in the Minn. HOF for a combination of all of his accomplishments be them good or bad for the sport ... If by chance you choose wisely Grass hopper, you can block him like I have done and from then on (POOF) he just goes away never to be seen or heard from again ... Happy New Year ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Hell N1H1 I knew this before you ever began shooting, I,am OLD SCHOOL, Graphs, ARE TOILET PAPER, Those tests were done w/YOUR GUN.
My Gun Shoots Better n YOUR GUN

NH You shoulda been at the Cardinal a Few Years ago and saw the 30 yard Breaks w/Winchester Super Handicaps Thru my Silver Seitz w/ Wilkinson BBl
during GRUDGE MATCH. I never patterned that gun.

SMOKE

GB.....................................DLS

 

WPT, I think N1H1 means well and should be debated. A lot of people takes what he says for gospel so that's why he should be debated.
Happy New Year!

 

Is there anything anyone would like to debate about what I've posted on this thread so far? I am willing to consider any counter-evidence at all. Frankly, I'm disappointed in the response to my work on this thread so far - surely there must be someone here who has different ideas and defensible reasons for holding them.

N1H1

 

Longshot, I suppose it was reasonable to not be much swayed by any claims at all before it was possible to do any real testing. People could say anything and it was impossible to find out for sure if it was true or not. But now there is real evidence for one description of the patterning-behavior of trap shotguns, evidence against another one.

In olden days claims like "My Gun Shoots Better n YOUR GUN" could never be tested. Now all anyone has to do is test a gun and find out the truth. Your gun shoots better then mine if testing shows it does. Until them, it doesn't.

N1H1

 

Long shot is the know all done all! We MUST believe!

 

Other than your plug for Winchester AA there is nothing I see to debate I didn't read everything but from what I read the conclusions seem logical. There is a reason why high end guns are much more expensive and it has a lot to do with producing better and more consistent patterns. The first time I shot my K80 Trap Special on paper I literally admired the pattern. The pellets were "evenly spaced." Anyway, you can have the best shooting gun, but its always the person behind it that matters.

 

Last time I looked at score sheets it had people's names ..... NOT how great their "gun was" .....

So, I can show up with charts and graphs showing how great my "gun" is and collect the money .....

Keep drinking, you may pass out .....

 

Mike, it is not exactly a plug for Winchester AA's; it's just that have been the best performers for years and so they were my choice to make that comparison test with. But they weren't the best shells this year. A darkhorse swept in from nowhere and took the prize!



It's true that the high-end guns I test are almost always good performers, but there can be problems. Here's a high-end gun by anyone's standard that I bought new at the Grand. I didn't check the bore when I bought it; it was a new, big-name gun, after all. When I did check the bore at home, it was awful: rough, inconsistent, crude. And its performance showed it:



A well known barrelsmith put it right:



He put tubes in it and all of the around 0.040 constrictions shot about the same. This argues against any magic being produced by any particular tube. This effect was carried, by the way, though all the Grand shells of that year.



But, as I wrote earlier, barrels (from any source, generally and without regard to cost) of similar constriction shoot about the same, if there's nothing wrong with them. And there are plenty of cheaper gun which shoot right with the $$$$ specials. One that stands out is the early Beretta 982 series gun with Mobilchokes. They are remarkable shooters.

I wanted to test the effect of lengthening forcing cones and I picked this 870 barrel from a stack of similar ones. It probably came from a gun show and I maybe paid in the neighborhood of $75 for it. It's at the very top end, performancewise:



But even just head-to-head with a Perazzi which has won a handicap at the Grand with a 99 from the 27, it won out. This may, or may not, be the same barrel, but the message is clear. It's not just high-end guns which shoot great and most similar guns shoot similarly. I hardly need point out that without all this testing, no one would ever know any of this.



Thanks for contributing to this thread, Mike J.

Yours in Sport,

Neil

 

Look here ..... http://www.browning.com/news/articles/browning-ammunition-coming-soon.html

"Browning and Winchester developed this full line of ammunition products under the Browning brand"

“It is a tremendous opportunity to partner with Winchester, the world’s leading manufacturer of ammunition for shooters and hunters,” "said Hall." "Winchester is responsible for product development, manufacturing, marketing and sales."

"Browning" has NEVER "manufactured" ANYTHING ..... speed up the drinking, you have not passed out yet .....

 

The average trapshooter owns about 5 trap guns. With nearly 30,000 ATA members owning nearly 150,000 guns Sir Neil tested a few and made the determination that 1oz. loads are ineffective beyond the 27 yd. line (hitting some kind of wall I assume). I'm still waiting for a chart and graph as proof of his position.

 

I certainly don't like the fact that a contributor here can't ignore ollie. I shouldn't have to spend a second reading or responding to his nonsense.

N1H1

 

Would it be too much to ask why you "can't ignore ollie" ?????

You seem to not like being treated like some were in Kool Aid Land, home of the mental midgets ..... Why is that ?????

 

When I do it I get a big red line which says I can't ignore a moderator. Try it yourself.

N1H1

 

Neil would never test a Ceasar Guerini Unsingle Trap Gun with their Tri-bore Full Chokes, as well as the Fabarms Full Chokes which are the same, He would not believe the Patterns I posted for him to check, I did a lot of patterning of CG Choke4s in my back yard. I tyest my own Chokes from a Sandbag rests until I moved 3 years ago, I know what they will do, No graphs just Patterns w/distance and Diameter, 1 1/8th oz Mag 7.5s Using Promo Powder. and some 700-X Look how Cockeyed his Radar Gun is mounted, on a Down Slope off a steel Corrugated Steel roof.

 

I saw your results on Shot Shell Speeds you alone got approved, it is legal now to shoot a 1,340fps trap shell 1250 + or - 90fps nice guy Neil

Gary Bryant...................................Dr.longshot

 

Neil should remember the 'dawg never forgets. Does this finally mean a change in an original position?

 

I do not Know if Neil W. Knows that CG Trapguns & Fabarms Trap Guns have Tapered Bbls, as well as Tri-bored Choke Tubes for SUPERB PATTERNS AND Their Choke Tubes are VERY< VERY lONG

Pick up a CG & Fabarms Trapgun and check the Full & Xtra-Full choke tubes which I shoot everywhere 16s and Hdcp & Long Range Shoot offs, Prove us WRONG NEIL

Gary Bryant.......................................Dr.longshot

 

The bore Diameter on O)LDER PERAZZI's are close to .724-.729 compared to your Bowen .740 you did not post Old Perazzi Bores

Compare Bores to Bores, like Apples to Apples

GB..........................DLS

 

Longshot: "I do not Know if Neil W. Knows that CG Trapguns & Fabarms Trap Guns have Tapered Bbls, as well as Tri-bored Choke Tubes for SUPERB PATTERNS AND Their Choke Tubes are VERY< VERY LONG"

I've read all about them, Dr. But as I said, now that the performance of guns can be realistically tested, just writing things like "superb patterns" isn't good enough. No one should take them seriously. Besides, an adjective like "superb" tells us nothing about patterns. Superb in what way? Specifically? Superb pattern percentages? Superb evenness (central thickening)? Superb pattern spread?

Get rid of nonsense like "superb" and find out the numbers and you will get somewhere. It can be done. It's work, but if you are trying to sell these things, what's a little work?

"Prove us WRONG NEIl." That's not the way it works. It's up to them to prove it, not me. Until they prove it, it's not true.

Beretta DT11's make the same sort of claims and I've bought at least five magazines based on a promised testing of one. The writers never test anything. They just repeat the maker's claims. That's where the money is so who can blame them?

N1H1

 

It's too bad readers here are locked out of the real world by a policy that won't let me link a whole wide treasure of shotgun-performance facts out there. Here's just a taste of what you are missing.

My tests of standard vs overbored Perazzis have never shown overbored guns to be better, but the overboring had been done by gunsmiths and I didn't know how they performed at the start. They might have been much improved just getting here as my TW gun had been.



The only way to be sure was to compare factory versions of both kinds of barrels.

I have a MX2000 Perazzi with dimensions consistent with the current fads. It's bore is 0.740", it's choke 0.040", the chamber is 3".

In 2012 I had Perazzi build me a TM9X with old dimensions. It's bore is 0.725", it's choke 0.040", it's chamber 2 3/4 inches.

The experimental question was whether big bores really shot better than the old guns we can buy for a few thousand.

Here, again, is how hopeless it is to look at a few patterns. Depending on which shots you compared, you could say either one was better. And you can't judge patterns by looking at them anyway. Remember the MX2000 is new-syyle, the TM9X is old-style.



OK, do readers think the new style, 0.740" bore will shoot higher-percentage patterns than the old-style 0.725" gun? Think about it and make a guess.



Do readers think the new style, 0.740" bore will shoot more even (less hot-centered) patterns than the old-style 0.725" gun? Think about it and make a guess.



OK, do readers think the new style, 0.740" bore will shoot patterns that spread more than those of the old-style 0.725" gun? Think about it and make a guess.



These two guns of recent vintage, both made by Perazzi, shot well but just the same. The faddish larger bore gave no advantage at all. You can buy old Perazzis for way less money than the new ones and get just as good a gun.

Yours in Sport,

N1H1

Addendum 1: One last thing. As I said earlier, the number of holes in patterns is related to the number of pellets in the patterns and random chance. Did these guns differ in the number of 5 square-inch holes in their patterns?


Of course not. Holes are not related to gun, they are related to those two named variables.

Addendum 2: Look how similarly those two gun shot to all the other results I posted above which were shot with different guns, different shells. Patterns are amazingly consistent and very much all the same when the equipment is the same.

 

Aim at the black dot below the bottom Clay at 20 yards. If your core pattern is on the bottom Clay you are at 50/50. If your hot core pattern lands on the top Clay then your POI is 90/10 . You can Scotch Tape this 8x11 sheet of paper to your overall 3x3' pattern board paper to see the outer flyers and full pattern. All I need to see is what's on this 8x11" target paper for my records. You can do a Copy and Paste on your computer and print it out with my permisson.

This is a quick and easy way to do an amateur hit & run pattern test.

Give it a Shot,
Storeman Norman

 

Best description I have ever seen. Thank You Roger C.

 

No need to go back into the archives. I'm simply refreshing your memory. I never made the statement the 27 yd. line about maximizes the distance a shotgun can break every target. Nor did I state a 1oz. load is ineffective from the current fence even though our own Deb Ohye broke a 100 from there using 'em. I did say the 27 yd. line was instituted back in the days of cardboard and filler wads when a 70% pattern was often unachievable yet those shooters persevered and won. So ignore me if you must but remember, I was there and shooting way before you anything about a shotgun.

Yes, I do pattern my guns for impact at about 15 yds. and it does seem to work. Credit you for that one!

 

I a bit surprised you like it, Roger, since I've always wondered why 50/50 is an inch above the point of aim. Can you explain that? Or better yet, why have the targets on it at all? Here's my improved version that clears away all the junk and get's right to point, the POI of your gun.


I thank storeman for the idea behind that graphic. But clearing away the extraneous junk: the targets, percent high, and so on, make it clear just what's happing with no confusion.

I like bigger paper since someone might be lulled into a false sense of security thinking a single shot tells him for sure what hit POI is.

Ideally, something like this which allows enough shots to really tell you what you want to know, but also lets you estimate the choke-performance of your gun if you follow the instructions of my booklet to the letter.

Let's start with a nice 48" sheet of paper and take six shots. You can use smaller paper, of course. You can get short rolls of 30" brown paper at a home store for $3 and it works just as well.



The POI's move around a bit partly because I don't always shoot in the same place and also because POI's move a little, shot-to-shot.

But I thought the first shot is just exactly where I wanted it and put an arrow on it to signal the shots I wanted to most trust.



See that hole blown right through the paper? That's what a full choke does at 13 yards when you use the exact shells I specify, light 7 1/2 AA's, STS's, or Gold Medals at the exact distance my booklet specifies, 13 measured yards.

Earlier in this thread you no doubt agreed with me that no one, including yourself, is ever going to pattern and count holes and all the other stuff you have to do to tell how your gun shoots. But you don't have to do any of that! All you have to do is set up a paper pattern board at a measured 13 yards, use the right shells, and you will know more about the performance of your gun than anyone else at your club.

Let's go though increasing degrees of choke and see ow easy this is to do.

We will start with cylinder.



Here we see that adding just 0.005" choke tightens things up a lot.




Here's the first choke you are likely to see, Modified.



Improved modified laces a hole. The paper is push away, but can be fitted back into the hole from the back.



Full blows a hole through the paper leaving nothing to fit back into the gap.



And extra-full acts just like full at 13 years, just as it usually does at 40 yards.



So there you have it. A practical way to test not only where your gun shoots, but learn everything you need to know about its performance as well.

I'll give you a chance to catch your breath and be back with a lot of other useful things patterning and POI testing at 13 yards can do for you. I'll be back in a while, watch this space!

Yours in Sport,

N1H1

 

NIH1 - Looks like tightening your choke raises the POI...more pellets above the horizontal line?? Why, just curious as to the logic.

 

Question from NW ...
I am a bit surprised you like it, Roger, since I've always wondered why 50/50 is an inch above the point of aim. Can you explain ?

Answer from Storeman ...
My theory on the Clay Target image is that in reality the target is (on the move) instead of being at a
(stationary still life) on the paper. Thus put your shot where it should be in real time.
If you want a 50/50 then cover the Bird instead of shooting below the Bird enabling the shooter to see it all.

Give it a Shot,
Try it, you will like it.
Storeman Norman

 

Say you test your single barrel and it shoots off to the side. Some would move the comb or something but then you are looking down a crooked gun and who wants that? Here's the cure.



This gun had shot to the left on several testing days. You don't do anything like this unless the gun has failed on test, retest, and re-retest on several different days. You need to take a lot of shots just to be sure both of the gun and your own shooting.

The first 4 shot reconfirm the left-shooting.

In shot 5 I had bent it to the right, too far.

In shot 6 I bent it back.

Shot 7 confirms shot 6.

Shot 8 bands it back a little more.

Shot 9 confirms shot 8.

Done this way, a little too far and then back, they way you would do a connecting rod, leaves a gun which will not shift its POI back over time, the way just bending it might. It stayed there and put its shooter on an All American first team this year.

But how to bend it you ask? Any way you want, but this is what I use.



And here is where the action is.



I'll show other powers of 13-yard testing as time permits.

Yours in Sport,

N1H1

 

Neil, I always used the `13yd. method on my guns. Your method of correcting a side ways move, leads me to believe you are from Kentucky. That is the method used in the hills. As far as the the in. above point of aim, I have no clue. Thanks for the info, I appreciate it. I think I may recognize that tree.
Have a safe and happy new year. Roger C.

 

Back in day when Dan B held about every record there was you'd be surprised how much cast off he had on that gun. No bent barrel.

 

Should we call it the Hill's method or the N1H1's method I sure hope no one is following that piece of scientific advice. Maybe it is just a plug to get work for barrel-smiths I hope N1H1 is just joking!

 

Just a couple more points about POI and Pattern Testing at 13 Yards.

I don't know if Brain® choke tubes even made a ripple here though they made for interesting March 2017 reading on other forums. They have double choking - one after the other - and are credited by their Grecian makers with impossible characteristics. Still, you have to find out how they actually perform before you can justifiably call their claims "impossible" (and have to have the evidence to back it up too, of course.)

Now that you know how to read effective choke at 13 yards from earlier posts, what do you make of these shots?

The left column is the Brain® C, next is a Briley, next a Muller, and on the far right is the C6 again, turned 180 degrees to see if that would change the left-shooting apparent in the first column. It didn't.

Well, how do they shoot, based on what you learned above? This is, of course, a test of the whole system. If these chokes don't shoot in the particular way predicted by 13-yard testing , you can't judge pattern performance at 40 yards from 13-yard targets.

Though there are some a bit more open, we expect all three of these chokes to produce full-choke, 40-yard patterns. Did they?

Not wishing to overdo this, but here again is how impossible it would be to find out anything about the relative performances of these choke without counting pellets and organizing the data.



So let's organize those data and see what's happening.



I hope you said that based on the fact that they blew holes through the paper they were full chokes and they were. Good going, you are getting the hang of this!

How about hot centers? That's measured by "central thickening" and it's quite variable because of the way it's calculated and the fact that patterns themselves are quite variable in this dimension.

What do the choke makers claim?

Brain:

"But what happens with BRAIN Chokes is that you get better breaks and (the most important!) higher scores, because you have an enhanced periphery which puts more pellets on your targets even if not perfectly centered. Simple. (May 2, 2017)

The bell-shaped density curve forms a tendency line (we have both studied Statistics, haven’t we?) which is far more flat in BRAIN pattern than in a normal one, especially in the height, where it’s nearly perfect! (May 3, 2017)"

Muller:

"As you can see by these numbers above and the numbers you'll see when doing your testing, we no longer are stricken with hot cores and sparse outer fringes, so here is my closing statement: Please don't confuse more open patterns with even pellet distribution, because folks...it is far more advanced than that.” (July 26, 2010)"

Well, by now I how you are more suspicious about advertising claim and a poster above was, so what's your guess? Which, if any of these three, will produce less hot-centered patterns?




There was no difference the the tendency of these three choke tubes to produce hotter or less-hot pattern centers.

How about pattern spread? Can you make chokes which maintain high pattern percentages and yet spread the pellets out over a larger area? What's you guess - no fair peeking!

The 75% diameter is the diameter of a circle which would contain 75% of the pellets. The larger the 75% diameter, the more spread-out is the pattern.

What to the choke makers claim?

Brain:

Brain, from the company’s website: (Brain chokes)“Are the best performing chokes in the World by far, increasing the effective surface of the pattern by at least 80%,

It increases the effective surface of the pattern by at least80% resulting in immediate astonishing increase of your successes."

Muller:

Muller, also from the corporate website: “Because the "usable" pattern is now larger than ever before and all the pellets in the shotshell are getting to the target rather than being lost by damaged flyers we now have a pattern that is both big and dense so we can break targets farther with a bigger pattern…”

(Muller chokes are)“the best chokes in the World.”

Here’s how their pattern-spreads (75% diameters) compared:



OK, what have we learned?

1. Chokes that produce similar pattern percentages also produce similarly hot centers and pellet spreads. That's actually how all patterns work. Once you know the pattern percentages, you know everything about the performance of that choke. No one has shown that they can beat this, not Fabarms Tri-bores, not even Beretta Stellium (until they have proven that they can, that is.)

2. Don't take seriously anything a choke maker claims without testing it. Particularly Brain and Muller. But plenty others too. Wad Stoppers," bumps instead of constriction, double chokes, "Geometry and Materials," it's all horsefeathers.

And last, you have seen that the predictions than you made about these chokes were proven true by their measured performance at 40 yards. This system works!

Thank you for your attention; I glad to see people are actually reading this!

Yours in Sport,

Neil

 

That's pretty much an empty answer, since it's backed up by nothing, except some irrelevant loyalty to Neil.

 

Well, maybe so, but there are so many confounding variables in his charts that it would take forever to do peer review on his work.

Even if we take his work as true, arguendo, Longshot's point is unavoidable that patterning doesn't directly correspond to how the shooter breaks the target. Shooting a trap target is a dynamic activity for which static measurements only have some relevance. For a turkey shoot, Neil's work might be a fantastic resource.

 

Oops! I forget something in that last post.

I didn't ever post this:



and here again is the text meant to go with it.

"Now that you know how to read effective choke at 13 yards from earlier posts, what do you make of these shots?

The left column is the Brain® C, next is a Briley, next a Muller, and on the far right is the C6 again, turned 180 degrees to see if that would change the left-shooting apparent in the first column. It didn't.

Well, how do they shoot, based on what you learned above? This is, of course, a test of the whole system. If these chokes don't shoot in the particular way predicted by 13-yard testing , you can't judge pattern performance at 40 yards from 13-yard targets.

Though there are some a bit more open, we expect all three of these chokes to produce full-choke, 40-yard patterns. Did they?"

And another thing. How about the left-shooting displayed by those three Brain® shots in the left column? When I turned the choke 180 degrees, they were still left.

As best as I can determine this was just a repeated error. I can't explain it, but I can tell you, errors like this happen. That's why, before you decide that this gun or tube is out of whack, you have to test it again. And again. And again. What's he problem? Once it's set up at your club (and I'll show you how later someday) it takes but a few minutes. And will help other members on the club in unimaginable ways. You should just do it.

Imagine how likely it is that anyone could diagnose a problem with one or two sheets of "POI paper" as illustrated earlier in the thread? This is serious business, readers. You have $hundreds or $thousands in that gun of yours and will send yet $ thousands down the bore. And how about gas? Time? Better things to do?

Do you really want to bet it all on a couple of sheets of paper? Are you nuts? Here you have a simple but completely rigid program which will, if you follow it exactly and in every detail, tell you all you need to know about your gun. Cut corners and you might as well not bother to do it; you won't learn what you need to will and come to believe things which aren't true which is worse than not testing at all.

Sorry for having to do this all over again, but I can't edit stuff after just 8 minutes and suspect I am the only one who can't. Is this fair?

Yours in Sport,

N1H1

 

That would come as a big surprise to the Olympic shooters and their <7/8 ounce loads shooting targets much farther and faster than ATA 27 yards.

 

Often you read that to test a POI or pattern you should shot several (up to 5!) shots at the same point-of-aim. I guess there is some idea that the "Law of Averages" will lead you to the right ansers, but since there is no such thing as the "Law of Averages" that people think of, it's not going to work.

And in any case, it's not what you should do at 13 yards.

Here's why.







Discussion.

1. The first shot indicated that maybe this gun shoots like an improved modified choke (you could push the paper back into most of the hole) and a very little to the left.

2. But after the second shot, you can no longer guess what the choke is like since with two shots we can only see a full-choke like hole but maybe the second (and third and fourth and fifth) shots, put not on the original point of aim but just near it, would have told you for certain that it shoots IM or Full which is a very big deal to a long-yardage handicap shooter.

3. After the third shot we think that the gun shoots super-straight but does it? Just pulling it to the right might have fooled us and heck, we can see that right-pull on the pattern, clear as day. So we are getting the wrong idea, maybe. Or maybe not.
The answer can be found only by more shots, maybe more carefully executed.

4. By shooting several shots at the same point-of-aim we deprive ourselves of important information, namely "How good are we at shooting this shotgun off this bench? Do we put the shots pretty-much in the same place so we can trust what we see or do we scatter shots here and there and can't trust our results at all?"

Taking single shots at separate points-of-aim will answer that question. And it's just paper, for heaver's sake! What's a little more paper once you have taken the trouble to set everything up?

Go ahead. Shoot your five (or more, it's just paper and you may do this only once) shots at different crosses. Only then will you have POI's you can trust. Or realize you can't do this at all which many can't but are still better off knowing they can't than thinking they know something about their guns that they really don't know at all.
Yours in Sport,

N1H1

 

N1H1 - The 8 minutes apply to everyone...well at least to me also. What will your 4th chart above (75% diameter at 40 yds) look like if you do if with a BT99 (for example) and a high-end gun with the same constriction choke from the same manufacturer. Just trying to find out if the BT99 average 75% diameter at 40 yds will be much less than that of a high-end gun.

But what happened to your TBR post that you were supposed to make. Start a new thread with that one it should be fun.

HAPPY NEW YEARS EVERYONE!! Glad to see we have a site where people are allowed to have free conversations.

 

I'm glad to hear that about the time limit, Mike J. I don't like it because my posts are long and detailed and I often don't see mistakes until time is up. What would be wrong with giving us a day? I spend a lot of time on a post and deserve a chance to make sure it's right. Look how I had to needlessly duplicate half a post above and waste everyone's time!

If you do this with a BT99 (or any other gun until some gun is proven not to obey these rules) and the pattern percentage is the same, the 75% diameter will be the same (over a large number of patterns) as will be the "center-hotness" of its patterns. Pattern percentage, central thickening, and 75% diameter are locked together in the "Gaussian" account of pattern behavior and I've shot an amazing number of patterns and not found any reliable exceptions (unless there's some unexpected problem with the shells.)

I'll say it again so there's no misunderstanding. "Pattern spread is inexorably linked to pattern percentage." The result is that no change in gun brand, cost, pedigree, or incantation change that. It's the way shotguns shoot, BT99's and Fabris, 870's and Perazzis.

Yours in Sport,

Neil

 

As long as I have our attention, Mike J, you wrote

"NIH1 - Looks like tightening your choke raises the POI...more pellets above the horizontal line?? Why, just curious as to the logic."

and that's a slow, fat pitch over my favorite part of the plate.

The "logic" is that it's what must happen. Look at this cylinder choke's pattern:



and compare it with these extra-full-choke patterns which display about the same POI.



When patterns open up, more and more pellets will drift below the point of aim as long as the gun doesn't shoot very high. It has to be that way and you can see why.

My bet is there's not one person here could define this "percent high" nonsense anyway, so why use it? It would clearly only work for a specific distance and what could you possibly make of me telling you "My gun gun shoots 70/30 at 23 yards." You may have done the required pellet counting at 36 yards so how does your gun's 70/30 at 36 yards POI compare to mine shot closer? We couldn't possibly tell. If I said 3 inches high at 13 yards, with a little simple mental arithmetic you could compare your gun's inches-high POI at any distance you happened to shoot it at.

I'll let you in on a secret. Shooters you tell you their gun shoots 4 inches high at x yards have almost certainly tested it. They may have done it all wrong, but at least they have taken the shots. People who say their gun is "has been set up as a "80/20 shooter" don't know where it shoots at all, but don't want to appear to be without a clue so they just say something that they hope ill act as a password into the in-group of shotgun cognizanti. Once you test your gun this way, you won't have to bluff.

Thanks for your post,

Yours in Sport,

Neil

 

You can also tell how good a reloader you are from 13 yard testing.

You have to use light 7 1/2 premium shells, AA, STS, or GM, to get a baseline of the performance of the best shells. Use a full choke or close. Then you can shoot your homeloads or another brand of shells - or maybe economy shells, for example - and see how they do.

In this example, it was clear that Estates were nowhere near as good for long-yardage handicap as the premium shells I compared them to. They perform about as if the gun was IM, not full. If you want to shoot IM from the 27, go ahead.



Yours in Sport,

Neil

To Mike J: I doubt I'll get to TBR, Mike. I'm bumping up against my annual internet hibernation period starting tomorrow and I look forward to it. Just don't try to read your target breaks for information about where the pellets which missed the target were centered. It doesn't work at all; it's just a compelling illusion. Instead just divide your breaks into "real smoke" and "other" and use that to tune your POI to your own personal shooting style. You will need a tight choke to do that, by the way.

1. And think and remember when you shoot. Sometimes you will think you shot a little higher on the bird than you intended, sometimes lower. Was the break better or worse? Over an event or month of this you might want to try moving your POI higher if an unexpectedly high gun generally leads to better breaks, lower if the opposite.

2. When you practice, don't just try to break a score. Try shooting lower than you are used to and see what happens. Or higher. If you find you can shoot well below the bird and still break it but just a little over and you miss, draw the obvious conclusion.

 

N1H1: My Fabarms RS-12 34" un-single w9/10ths extra full choke will not work the way you pattern your guns. I had Danny Keaton mill 200 thousandths off the bottom of the front of my rib, then drill and pin it at it's lowest point to get max height POI, then I added a Green Tubular Sight for a higher POI.

I took the Bbl off at the gun club and put it on sandbag installed the Laser 12 ga shell and rotated it in the Bbl to be sure it did not wobble and stayed fixed.

Reassembled the gun my POI is approx. 30"inches to center of pattern @32 yards. Middle bead at base of front bead. Pellets are actually higher.

Most shooters cannot hit a 27 yard target with my gun, they shoot over them

Gary Bryant................................Dr.longshot

 

My Bbl is not bent, but perfectly straight, and it is a tapered Bbl Bbl has .011 taper opens to .736 @ Choke tube Entrance, Choke tube Restriction is .048@ tightest Restriction and opens to.705 there is .013 relief in the choke tube. I have 20"inch Baker Bore Mic. Choke tubes are 3 -5/8ths" in Long.

Maybe this will tell you the Bbl Design specs. Bbl has a long forcing Chamber, My Mic will not go that big, I can only pick up .030 of the taper that is the last .010, it starts before that.

Gary Bryant.............................Dr.longshot

 

P O I was the name of this post -- been reading with great interest. -- Am not interested in pattern or choke selection at this time -- But the question I have is understanding P O I -- I have shot a 1100 Remington for ever which shoot a 50/50 P O I which to my understanding is a horizontal plan to the barrel? Just picked up a browning with a adjustable comb. thought I would try a higher P O I -- Tried Storemans and N1H1"s targets at 13YD.. Gun shoots eight inches high at center of pattern. but this isn't a horizontal plan correct? So at 36 Yd I would be 20 inchs High ? and back on the 27YD. 32 inchs ? Storeman also added the one inch on his target to compensate for bird rise -- Is this something else I have to figure in? So shooting a high gun you float the bird more at 27YD. than at 16Yd's?

 

Unless you have a way to "look" through the center of the "bore", the POA and the POI should "cross" at ??? distance .....

If your "eye" is ??? distance above the "bore", and you make two "straight lines", one from your "eye", and one through the "bore", the "lines" will continue that same distance "apart", until the shot starts to "drop" ..... So, without an "angle" of the "line(s)", a "firearm" would "shoot" that equal distance "low", and "drop" more with "distance" .....

Everyone is "unique" in "size", "shape", and "style" ..... so, trying for a "one size fits all answer", only works with crayon colored charts .....

 

User 1 -The two straight line are parallel to each other.? and the eight inches high at thirteen yards will be the same at sixteen yds.line and the twenty seven yrds. line? Maybe the old saying you can't teach a old dog new tricks is true. Shoulder surgery last year and cataracts giving problems -- I was hoping a higher gun would help see the bird better.

 

"See the bird better" ..... When ????? At the time you "shoot at it" ?????

If you hold the "gun" at a "low" position when you "call the target", you should be able to "see it" no matter what the POI is.

Unless you "stop the gun" just as you "pull the trigger" ..... "gun speed", as in how "aggressively" you "go after" a target, changes "what you see" more than any crayon colored paper can tell you .....

 

Ju

just trying to set up my adjustable comb -- Like I said before -- I shot a1100 with a 50/50 POI for years Where the bead was was where the gun shot --never had a adjustable comb -- the good shooter's are talking 60/40 - 70/30 - 80/20- P O I -- Float the bird is all I hear from them -- Just trying to understand and play around with my new gun before the season.

 

rrisum,

The "lines" are not parallel to each other in the context of your question. With your eye above the bore, and assuming both your eye and the bore are looking at the same target some distance away, they are never parallel but do cross at the point you are aiming. You can extrapolate the rise from the shorter distance out to whatever distance you are concerned with. Gravity will have a small impact, I think you can find much more detailed analysis here if you search on it.

With an adjustable comb, you can get it where you don't have to "float" the target, but you could also have it shooting higher at distance where you could float it if you want to. Ask Doc Longshot, he really likes the high shooting guns.

 

rrisum,

Your math is correct-enough. But it addresses no particular need of yours at this stage, or maybe ever. What you are trying to do is

1. Determine where the gun shoots off a rest at 13 yards with several shots if they are in about in the same place, many shots if they are not, You have to keep at it until you know for sure what's going on. If the shots are not in a vertical line over your point of aim(or nearly) that may need to be addressed or maybe not. We can put that off for this discussion.

(While it may be interesting, or instructive or sometimes even useful, there's no reason to calculate the height of the shot over the point of aim at bird-yardages at this time.)

Ok let's say your gun shoots as high as you calculate. Is that where it should shoot?

Well, is it?

If you answered "Get off my back; I've no idea!" you are well on your way to setting up a gun to match your needs.

2. Get all that stuff about 60/40, 80/20 and so on out of your head. It's all total nonsense, used only by people who have never even tried to find out where their gun shoots. You can assume that anyone who tells you his gun shots an NN/NN percentage doesn't know where it shoots, since he if he did he would say "My gun shoot 8 inches high at 40 yards" (or similar.) Now you don't want to be even associated with that group, so just purge that kind of gobbledy-gook from your vocabulary. And our mind too. Forget it; talk in inches.

3. I think you are looking with distrust at the outcomes of your calculations. It seems like a long way to "float the bird" as they all so love to say. You are probably thinking it might make more sense to you to shoot more near the bird that than far away from it and I'll bet you will turn out to be right. But you don't know yet.

4. Assuming money and time are no object to you, you could try shooting with it that way with no plan at all and eventually (Weeks? Months? Eons?) you would either learn to shoot it that way or, tiny-bit by tiny-bit, move the POI (probably down, in my opinion) until you were satisfied that when you shoot they way you like, you smoke the bird. Or you might just quit in frustration; lots of hopeful shooters do since they run out of money, time, or patience long before they get anywhere in trapshooting often because the advice they got at the club or online was often worse than useless.

5. You haven't asked for my advice, but since you are used to shooting a gun which pretty-much puts its pellets where it's pointed, starting with a smaller rather than a larger difference from that might be what will work best, at least at this stage of you experience with a proper trapgun. Fix that and then go out with it with a plan to guide you which way to go with the POI if you have to go anywhere at all

I suggest:

A. Move the POI down to an inch/inch-and-a-half, two inches above the POA at 13 yards.

2a.Ideally, you would be able to shoot alone and stop the oscillation of the trap for the most concentrated learning, but even if you have to shoot with a squad you can learn a lot if you have a plan.

2b. Don't even think about "reading your breaks" for information about where the center of the shot-cloud was: above/below/right/left, that sort of thing. It's compelling illusion but an illusion nevertheless and will just mess you up. You can't read breaks that way; no one can. It doesn't work and is based on a total misunderstanding of where the form of the breaks comes from and what controls it.

2c, But you can, and should, simply "judge" your breaks and grade their quality: smoke, pretty hard, weak, miss. You may
not know exactly where your gun was when it went off, but at least you might usually have a pretty-good idea and you should match that impression with the result of the shot and the quality of the break, If, in an afternoon of shooting, it seemed like your best breaks were often when you thought the gun was higher than usual, move the POI up a little and see if it helps. If the best breaks resulted when you shot lower than you intended, then move the POI down some and see what happens.

3. Don't even try to understand the poster you are presently corresponding with. Or a lot of the others, both here and at the club. In the end, you are going to have to figure all this out for yourself and the first step is to know what to listen to, what not to. Advise you can't understand, or is clearly in error on many points, should be ignored. And the experienced shooter who volunteers to read you breaks for you is just dangerous, that's all. Keep him and all the others you can't trust away from your progress. All they can do is mess you up. You need to keep thinking straight and learn from your results; what are the chances they know as much about your shooting as you do ?

I hope you will come back now and then and tell you how you are doing and how many inches high at 13 yards you ended up settling for, at least so far. After all, it may change. Or not. Still, we'd like to know.

Yours in Sport,

N1H1

PS When you know from experience where it shoots when you are getting your best results, go back to 13 yards and document where it now puts the shot. You may want to calculate that out to bird-distance, but I think you will see that there's no reason to. You know what you need to and can stop there and not miss a thing.

 

With my 1100 trap with a fixed stock I learned to shoot where it shot. -- buying a gun with a adjustable comb and stock just throws a hole new dimension to my shooting --I finally figuring out -- Why buy it if you aren't going to use it --- isn't always true -- Thank you N1H1 for your down to earth explanation -- .will be adjusting that comb and butt plate closer to my 1100 and start with baby steps. -- thanks for everything !! Will shoot a lot of paper Ron

 

And the paper-killing crayon eater has spoken his gospel, again ..... about how "shooting" a non-moving shotgun, at a non-moving piece of paper is the Holy Path to follow .....

Amen Brother ..... preach on ..... maybe at 2 million shells you can get up to a couple of second place finishes ..... on a practice with a 2 man squad .....

 

I use the KISS system. If 100% of my pattern strikes completely above my POA at any distance, I can shoot that gun.

 

But the MX3S you sold me, Ollie, shoots perfectly flat and I move it just a bit above that. It's a wonderful gun which is now at Wenig for a new suit of wood, front and back. I'll either shoot that this summer or a newish-to-me TW mid-70s MX8 that Gun Doctor (DB) renewed for me. What fun trapshooting is! Every year you close the average book for good and set out with a fresh start, off on a new adventure. Look forward, not back; it's a game, after all, and the point is to have fun.

Differn' strokes...

N1H1

 

Well, you busted me again Neil. I knew that gun shot dead flat but that was my secret. However, the previous owner is now the owner of a Krieghoff Trap Special that he shoots worse. Can't say I haven't seen that before.

 

Per my last post to Storeman { which didn't upload} I just printed out your clay bird target. --going to try them at 13 yds. for my POI --. Is that one inch rise factor added all the way out on my multiplier? which would be 2.8- x for my 16Yd. and 3.6-x for my 27Yd. figuring a 20 Yd. brake.? Always wondered how to factor in bird rise from a stationary target? ..Retirement is great when you have nothing better to do than shoot !

 

Misum: Listening to N1H1 will keep you with your screen name (MISUM) cause that is what you will be doing.