Nonsense

[Jan Powell]

Sitting in the clubhouse of my local ground this afternoon listening to chatter at the next table got me thinking of the nonsense I’ve heard my fellow competitors discussing over the years. Sometimes it’s said tongue in cheek, more often it’s presented as fact.

Here’s a few that spring to mind:

1. Always shoot the tightest choke possible, it improves accuracy.

2. Shoot a tight choke in practice then an open choke in competition, your scores will increase.

3. Shoot the fastest cartridge you can find. It may recoil more but you’ll get to the target quicker (that one came from a very successful trap shooter!)

4. Shoot early morning during the winter, the thinner air makes the shot more efficient (unbelievable I know).

5. Never use a pattern plate, it just confuses things.

6. Lifting your comb or altering pitch will raise your point of impact (always a favourite).

7. Release triggers should be banned, they’re more dangerous than normal triggers. (As a RT user that’s one I hear quite often).

8. Modern guns with multichokes, custom grips, adjustable stocks, ribs and barrels are a waste of time. They didn’t have that in my day.

9. Shoot your way through a slump.

10. The best shooters don’t need a gun that fits perfectly, they’re just naturally talented.

I’m sure there’s many more, feel free to add your favourites.
 

 

[Lloyd]

No:4

In terms of the physics the opposite is true. Air is thinner when it’s hotter. The gas (air) expanded. This creates less drag. 
 

However, at the sizes of shot we would be using, and the velocities they are shot along with the difference in air viscosity at temperatures of say -10 to 30degC, the difference in energy lost would be less than it would take for a gnat to get a hard on. And that’s a scientific fact. True life!

 

[k80ben]

Number 5 belongs in the truth file. And to a degree so does 6 

 

[Jonny English]

I heard this cracker from a ground manager:

"When steel shot ricochet's it can come back at you quicker than when you fired it"

Pretty sure that defies the laws of physics.

 

[Wonko the Sane]

I heard this cracker from a ground manager:

"When steel shot ricochet's it can come back at you quicker than when you fired it"

Pretty sure that defies the laws of physics.

Not only faster there is an increase in temperature as well !!!  Best be careful particularly if you shoot it at a plate with altered pitch.

Actually, back in the day when shooters just cheeked the gun rather than the current fashion, altering the pitch did indeed change the POI as it altered the relationship of the gun to the whole body since the constant of the cheekbone reference was lacking.

 

[Markh701]

I heard this cracker from a ground manager:

"When steel shot ricochet's it can come back at you quicker than when you fired it"

Pretty sure that defies the laws of physics.

Maybe they planted rubber trees

 

[Lloyd]

Maybe they planted rubber trees

Reminds me of the old physics conundrum.

Which would bounce higher when dropped:  A rubber ball dropped onto a steel plate or a steel ball dropped onto a steel plate?

 

[Wonko the Sane]

That would depend on whether or not the rubber ball was shaped like a feather

 

[Martinj]

I heard this cracker from a ground manager:

"When steel shot ricochet's it can come back at you quicker than when you fired it"

Pretty sure that defies the laws of physics.

That would actually be the solution to perpetual motion and would resolve the worlds energy problems

 

[V8 90]

1 I’ve heard more than once.

Just use any cheap cartridges for practice, after all it’s only practice

 

[Luke_(NL)]

"Swinging the gun spreads the shot horizontally" . While I understand the wishful thinking behind this pearl, the maybe 3 ft/second sideways velocity of the barrel will not have measurable impact at shot that is propelled from said barrel at 400 times that speed, especially since the "spread" only forms after shot leaves cup or wad (which isn't until it is out of the barrel) and most people do in fact stop the barrel at the moment they pull the trigger. 

 

[Jonny English]

We've all dropped the ball here and missed the most common load of nonsense going:

"I definitely took a piece of that one ref, I definitely hit it, even my mate says so"

 

[Will Hewland]

We've all dropped the ball here and missed the most common load of nonsense going:

"I definitely took a piece of that one ref, I definitely hit it, even my mate says so"

Agreed, but that isn’t always nonsense. There are a couple of notably blind refs out there. One I don’t see anymore, thankfully. Another I do frequently. Another, who I am friends with is a qualified ref who has been dodgy at seeing long kills for a while. It was getting awkward. Last week he told me he has actually handed in his “gun and badge” to the ground he works at and confessed that until he gets his eyes sorted he can’t ref. Bloody good on him. Many would just soldier on..

 

[El Spavo]

Last week he told me he has actually handed in his “gun and badge” to the ground he works at and confessed that until he gets his eyes sorted he can’t ref. Bloody good on him. Many would just soldier on..

Many people should apply that logic to driving too!

1 I’ve heard more than once.

Funnily enough, I asked this very question when I first started as to me the logic seemed concrete that if you have a small spread of shot, you would need to be more accurate to hit the same target, but I never did understand why everyone said that was cobblers...

 

[westley]

Agreed, but that isn’t always nonsense. There are a couple of notably blind refs out there. One I don’t see anymore, thankfully. Another I do frequently. Another, who I am friends with is a qualified ref who has been dodgy at seeing long kills for a while. It was getting awkward. Last week he told me he has actually handed in his “gun and badge” to the ground he works at and confessed that until he gets his eyes sorted he can’t ref. Bloody good on him. Many would just soldier on..

Was this conversation before he got into his vehicle to drive home  ?     I ask because I know someone that "Only needs glasses for driving "   ?????

 

[Lloyd]

Many people should apply that logic to driving too!

Funnily enough, I asked this very question when I first started as to me the logic seemed concrete that if you have a small spread of shot, you would need to be more accurate to hit the same target, but I never did understand why everyone said that was cobblers...

I think your logic is well founded to be honest.

To be ‘accurate’ you would have the Center of the pattern over the centre of the clay. 

If the pattern out at the distance of the clay is say 30” then your accuracy has to nominally be within Plus or minus 12” to 13” making sure the pattern overlaps the clay fully (ignoring pattern density for the sake of argument)

If then the pattern is only 20” diameter at that same distance at a plus or minus 12” you’d miss. You’d need to be within a tolerance of 7” to 8” the get the same break. 

All very hypothetical of course and taking only basic variables into consideration.

To me it’s logical that to improve ones shooting, you need to develop repeatability over accuracy. Being able to miss by the same amount to within a small margin of error will ultimately break more clays as you a just for the missing  

Next most important would be to develop precision, or in other words to be able to make small incremental adjustments to the sight picture. 1/4” at the barrels will be a foot at 40 yards, so developing the ability to make precise corrections of say 1/16” at the barrels is going to be highly beneficial. Even if you tend to see the lead out at the target say 4’ or 8’ or whatever, it’s still a tiny amount of movement at the gun to increase or decrease lead by a foot. Personally I see lead at the muzzle so I’d be looking at lead  of 1” or 2”

Get these two things right and with corrections, the accuracy will take care of itself. 

All of course fabulously easy to do with a target moving at against a low contrast background, being blown about by the wind with your digital micrometer in hand to aid your measurement  

This could become No: 27 on the list

 

[schmokinn]

That would depend on whether or not the rubber ball was shaped like a feather

Wouldn't be a ball then would it?

 

[Wonko the Sane]

It would be a feather shaped ball.  There is some evidence that at this point in the 21stCentury the definitions  of words have become quite fluid.  A feather shaped ball poses no problems for me.   :thumbsu:

 

[ips]

Number 5 belongs in the truth file. And to a degree so does 6 

Agree with this, and can i add 10 to the truth file (for a very few truly naturally talented folk)