Nonsense

[Finners]

I'd add (for Sporting shooters only) "Changing chokes is a waste of time, if you're on 'em, you're on 'em"   

 

[westley]

So, IF raising the comb on a stock does NOT affect the er...P.O.I.    (God forbid )  Why do Trap guns have a higher comb to deal with, and I quote  "A rising target" and "Trap shooters like to see the target at all times"  indicating that the gun shoots higher  ??? (Apart from the 'Gurning Factor' that is).

 

[Lloyd]

So, IF raising the comb on a stock does NOT affect the er...P.O.I.    (God forbid )  Why do Trap guns have a higher comb to deal with, and I quote  "A rising target" and "Trap shooters like to see the target at all times"  indicating that the gun shoots higher  ??? (Apart from the 'Gurning Factor' that is).

With a standard dimensioned stock on my Blaser F16 and even after shortening by 20mm, I was forever shooting over the top of pretty much all presentations..

I raised the comb by 6mm and dropped the heal by 6mm and now don’t have any problem placing the pattern. The pitch remained the same, though I’m considering increasing this as I do get muzzle flip. That said it may be a mute point. The gun settles before I ever reach the next target even on a sim pair. The recoil impulse is around 0.1sec at the most judging by the video slow-mo playback

 

[El Spavo]

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...

Just had this alerted due to a response but can someone elaborate on why it actually isn't a fairly accurate thing to suggest: that a smaller shot would have to make you more accurate cos otherwise you'd simply miss? Just after reasonable responses to make a logical reason to it not being a fair comment, not just wanting to make me look one way or another.

 

[Lloyd]

Just had this alerted due to a response but can someone elaborate on why it actually isn't a fairly accurate thing to suggest: that a smaller shot would have to make you more accurate cos otherwise you'd simply miss? Just after reasonable responses to make a logical reason to it not being a fair comment, not just wanting to make me look one way or another.

Suppose we take the archetypal 30” (762mm in new money) diameter spread of shot at 20 yards through 1/4 choke. To break the standard target 108mm the shot and target must overlap in some sort of loud skyward Venn diagram. Thus, bang on center (assumes a perfectly and evenly distributed pattern for simplicity) then to ensure we have a full overlapping of shot and clay (with the aforementioned caveat of patter distribution) we can deviate from out center position (762 - 108) + 2 = 327mm (about 13” in old money) either side of centre allowance 

now swap out the 1/4 choke for full and at the same 20 yards the spread is about 15” thus the allowance is now about 5 1/2” (while the shot spread is getting smaller by 50% the clay is still 108mm)

Take an air rifle and shoot the clay (as per GD gap has done) or take a 9mm ball bearing in a catapult (as per Ed Solomons) and you now have a deviation from center of 50mm or 2” in old money.

Now it could be argued that this is just all too theoretical and it doesn’t really work like this in real life. In which case, try pointing gun 1 meter left or right of the centre of the clay and see how we get on. You’ll miss by approximately 22”. With aforementioned air rifle, you’d miss by 37”

So, in conclusion, whilst there are caveats, in the simplistic model, yes, you would have to be more accurate with a smaller shot pattern.

If you want to take pattern distribution into the equation, it really becomes more about probability than geometry on the fringes of the latter, but in simple terms, the more central the distribution of pellets the more accurate you’d need to be to have a greater probability it hitting and breaking the target.

This is why I ended up using 1/2 and 1/2 because I’ve seen distant clays break with 1/4 choke using 21 gram cartridges. I’ve seen close targets break with 1/2 choke. I don’t want to dic... mess about with changing chokes, or worrying if I missed because I hadn’t switched the barrel over.

I believe I will learn sight pictures with greater precision using 1/2 chokes without have to suffer the frustration of missing lots of targets using full.

Maybe there are some targets not breaking because I’m using half choke, but I’m quite sure that’s a lack of accuracy on my part but I’m happy to miss the few in order to better learn how to hit the many as I progress 

 

[El Spavo]

Everyone get that? Good. 

 

[Luke_(NL)]

It makes sense to me. Smaller spread requires a greater degree of accuracy than a greater spread of shot would, all else being equal etc. Hard to argue otherwise. 

 

[El Spavo]

It makes sense to me. Smaller spread requires a greater degree of accuracy than a greater spread of shot would, all else being equal etc. Hard to argue otherwise. 

Yup, but apparently there is a valid argument against it, just havent heard it yet. 

 

[Luke_(NL)]

I'm not holding my breath until we do.  

 

[ColinD]

It makes sense to me. Smaller spread requires a greater degree of accuracy than a greater spread of shot would, all else being equal etc. Hard to argue otherwise. 

But if the idea is to break the clay and not turn it into dust to make a score, why would you make it harder to do that in the first place by using tighter chokes than you need to.

I get the idea it could make you a better shot theory.But the other side of the coin you could demoralize youself by missing more and give the sport up.

 

[El Spavo]

I'm sure some sage will enlighten us infidels shortly.

 

[El Spavo]

But if the idea is to break the clay and not turn it into dust to make a score, why would you make it harder to do that in the first place by using tighter chokes than you need to.

I get the idea it could make you a better shot theory.But the other side of the coin you could demoralize youself by missing more and give the sport up.

I think that's the theoretical key exactly. I would have thought that if it was correct, then if you happened to twitch, not be on target exactly, etc. then the fact that you're not quite on it means you'll get away with it cos you're possibly More accurate.

I dunno, could all be utter b0llocks!

 

[Martinj]

But if the idea is to break the clay and not turn it into dust to make a score, why would you make it harder to do that in the first place by using tighter chokes than you need to.

I get the idea it could make you a better shot theory. But the other side of the coin you could demoralize youself by missing more and give the sport up.

The theory is that tighter chokes are less forgiving for marginal shots, you are either on it or you are not so you learn more quickly where to put the shot. You will still hit clays, although maybe not so many.

If you find yourself demoralised go back to the old chokes before you get to the "giving it up" stage  

There was a time when I was young enough to care (or gullible enough) when I tried it for a while and look at me now . . . (Mr. Average )

 

[Freddypip]

I might add that with a 'chipped' break you may not understand whether you have over or under lead the clay etc.

I am not condoning the use of over tight chokes - I believe that you pick two - put them in - and shoot.

Changing anything too much creates inconsistency.

 

[Luke_(NL)]

But if the idea is to break the clay and not turn it into dust to make a score, why would you make it harder to do that in the first place by using tighter chokes than you need to.

I get the idea it could make you a better shot theory.But the other side of the coin you could demoralize youself by missing more and give the sport up.

I'm not advocating the use of tighter chokes to make one's own shooting harder (as per my previous post, I usually require a larger spread than my chokes give me ). 

I do however agree with the principle that a tighter spread requires a shooter to be more accurate than when shooting with a wider spread. That has been labeled "nonsense" in this thread, but I fail to see why. 

I'll try extra full chokes on my next round of skeet and see what holds up. 

 

[El Spavo]

If you find yourself demoralised go back to the old chokes before you get to the "giving it up" stage  

Nah fella, just asking the question, I'm perfectly happy with my shooting and choice of 1/4 and 1/2 thank you very much.

 

[timps]

Just had this alerted due to a response but can someone elaborate on why it actually isn't a fairly accurate thing to suggest: that a smaller shot would have to make you more accurate cos otherwise you'd simply miss? Just after reasonable responses to make a logical reason to it not being a fair comment, not just wanting to make me look one way or another.

It’s to do with statistics, but scientifically it is not nonsense you are correct a tighter spread does require you to be more accurate, however, statistically it is often argued that the times you miss with say a full but would hit with a ¼ are few and far between and you would miss with both or hit with both just the quality of the break would differ.

It is something that can never be proven either way without some expensive equipment and many hours of observations.

But the statistic argument does have a degree of truth to it, someone screws in a tight choke and starts to miss it’s usually because they believe they have to be more accurate and start rifling shots and micro measuring their lead.  This usually results in them stopping the gun and obviously they put the misses down to not being accurate enough, but in reality, if they had just shot as they normally did the scores would be similar.

But the normal reality is the choice of chokes are only ever going to gain or lose you a couple of clays at most on a good or bad day and non for a large percentage of the rest, no matter what the science dictates, people don’t normally consistently miss by the difference between the chokes so it only ever equates to the odd couple of clays over the year.

Well that’s my opinion on it for what it is worth.

 

[Santa2512]

Number 9 is true, 

No matter how  bad things are going dont give up , you do to some extent shoot your way out of a slump. 

A lot of putting a shot together comes from the preparation and follow trough, so sometimes just  shooting the bogey bird over and over will often help you to identify what you are doing wrong . (Some coaching or hep from fellow shooters is invaluable though)

When i was doing competitive archery, i used to spend hours just shooting at a blank boss.   i wasn't interested in scores or groups, it was just to practice mounting , drawing

and releasing over and over.   

So i'd definitely say shoot through a slump 

:santa: