Sporting Clays Pattern Evaluation

[balltrap]

How much are your Rio now?

I am buying them at £160 per thou

 

[schmokinn]

Any idea where they may be purchased in the South?

 

[Will Hewland]

Oxford gun co. EJC Churchill will get them in on request. Not sure about much further south..

 

[Geordieboy]

anoraks 

Anoraks?....Anoraks????  We've not had a good cartridge/Pattern thread on here for ages!!!  Time we had something to Anorak about I reckon! 

Anyway......are Anoraks a new Ultimate patterning shell for under £150/1000 or summick?   :huh:

 

[Sian]

Anoraks?....Anoraks????  We've not had a good cartridge/Pattern thread on here for ages!!!  Time we had something to Anorak about I reckon! 

Anyway......are Anoraks a new Ultimate patterning shell for under £150/1000 or summick?   :huh:

If you want to get really anoraky then POA or POI or antimony those are the things to talk about.

 

[Geordieboy]

Antmony?   :blink:   Isn't that what you have to pay your american wife when you divorce her?  :wacko:

 

[Lord v]

Antmony?   :blink:   Isn't that what you have to pay your american wife when you divorce her?  :wacko:

its wot you add to lead to make it well 'ard.

but its lighter so the more you add the stiffer (matron) and lighter the shot gets.

 

[ChrisPackham]

Antmoney?   :blink:   Isn't that what you have to pay your american wife when you divorce her?  :wacko:

I thought that was insect currency, current used as a hedge against GBP..

 

[Geordieboy]

Ah Yes......AntMoney.  Got it!  Seen that movie Antz.  I bet they use it all the time 

 

[timps]

Funny you should say about rolling...the rabbits at Gunsite on Sunday if missed were rolling round towards the queue.

The amount of whole ones with holes in outnumbered the pristine ones and that was at fairly close range so their quantity over size was certainly true.

So if you can blatantly see a whole in the target you just shot though it didn't disintegrate should it be called a hit or miss?

I had a bizarre one last year, simo pair of floaty overheads that were no more than 10yds above you, everyone was shooting both on the drop in front and missing an odd one because you had to rush. I decided to shoot the first one directly above me. Worked great on the first 3 pairs, then smoked the centre out of the next bird, just left a ring like 50% of the clay gone!!! Ref calls loss kill, I raised my hand and asked, "are you sure ref???" 

"Loss!!!"

"He blew the middle clean out that first one ref" says the three guys behind me,

"Loss, I did not see a visible piece come off"

"So did you see the hole in the middle? How did you think it got there?"

"I seen the hole, I read the rules last night, there has to be a visible piece come off or it doesn't count!!!"

I realised I had a new ref that didn't shoot clays, my score was already to far gone to matter about one clay so let it go

The current rules state :-

"TARGET DEFINITION “HIT” A regular target that in the opinion of the Referee only: 3.10 Has had a visible piece broken from it, is completely destroyed or, in the case of targets that are presented whole and during flight holes are seen to appear which have been caused by the Competitor’s shot. "

So if a hole appears then it is a hit according to the current wording of the rules. 

I have seen a couple of unbroken clays on the FITASC layout that have one or two tiny holes the size of the shot in them. I doubt any ref would have seen them appear in flight. 

I also doubt going up a shot size would have caused those clays to break either but a few more  pellet  strikes probably would have.  I read a test that suggested  three pellet strikes is the minimum to  guarantee a break.

No idea on the efficacy of the test so that it could be that specific on the number 3 but for me I would rather have 3 strikes of a number 8 than one of a number 7.

I have zero proof that my opinion is any good but like the idea of it so shoot Italian 8.5 (2.2 mm)  at everything so that's what I do. 

Ironicaly my best score at sporting 95 ex 100 was with English 7's but could never convince myself to shoot 7's all the time, so I wouldn't listen to my opinion anyway.  

 

[Hamster]

I also doubt going up a shot size would have caused those clays to break either but a few more  pellet  strikes probably would have.  I read a test that suggested  three pellet strikes is the minimum to  guarantee a break.

No idea on the efficacy of the test so that it could be that specific on the number 3 but for me I would rather have 3 strikes of a number 8 than one of a number 7.

I have zero proof that my opinion is any good but like the idea of it so shoot Italian 8.5 (2.2 mm)  at everything so that's what I do. 

Ironicaly my best score at sporting 95 ex 100 was with English 7's but could never convince myself to shoot 7's all the time, so I wouldn't listen to my opinion anyway.  

I too have read words to that effect and indeed similar ones regarding live game !   I am always keen to dispel old wives tales and assertions that have no data to back them up and this one is among the easiest to disprove. Back in the day I got myself quite a collection of different type of clay targets with multiple holes in, the most being nine identifiable holes in a rabbit and several standard clays with four or five which puts to bed that little nonsense. 

In my pigeon shooting and plucking career I have also found many birds that had folded and expired in mid air to show no sign of injury, and many with several pellets in that had had to be put down by hand. 

Incidentally it is surprising how easily you can punch holes through clays set up as targets using massive .22 air gun pellets, it is more often than not the centrifugal spin of the target in flight that cause a fracture to spread and self destruct. 

 

[Lord v]

I have used clays as targets for .22 rim fire- they reguarly just punch straight through. 

 

[timps]

I too have read words to that effect and indeed similar ones regarding live game !   I am always keen to dispel old wives tales and assertions that have no data to back them up and this one is among the easiest to disprove. Back in the day I got myself quite a collection of different type of clay targets with multiple holes in, the most being nine identifiable holes in a rabbit and several standard clays with four or five which puts to bed that little nonsense. 

In my pigeon shooting and plucking career I have also found many birds that had folded and expired in mid air to show no sign of injury, and many with several pellets in that had had to be put down by hand. 

Incidentally it is surprising how easily you can punch holes through clays set up as targets using massive .22 air gun pellets, it is more often than not the centrifugal spin of the target in flight that cause a fracture to spread and self destruct. 

I never bought into the exact number 3 as like you I have seen clays with more than three holes in them and no idea how they determined clays didn’t break within less than 3 strikes or more likely to break with 3. However, the multiple strike hole theory does hold some scientific value in some cases due to crack inducement points and more chances of stress fractures linking the holes up over a greater area for the clay to fall apart whilst under spin. Three spaced out holes might cause a clay to fall apart more than one bigger hole, then again if they are spaced out too far they might not.

However, the problem with any theory lies with the different make up of clays from different manufacturers, a harder more brittle clay would react differently to softer less brittle clay. I remember shooting a flying rabbit at a section or championship shoot in Wales, you could hear and see the shot bouncing off it, one larger pellet would be a darn sight more effective than 3 smaller ones for that target.

In reality I personally want more 2.2mm shot in the air than less but bigger shot and it genuinely perplexes me as to why because I got very good scores with English number 7’s.

 

[Hamster]

I never bought into the exact number 3 as like you I have seen clays with more than three holes in them and no idea how they determined clays didn’t break within less than 3 strikes or more likely to break with 3. However, the multiple strike hole theory does hold some scientific value in some cases due to crack inducement points and more chances of stress fractures linking the holes up over a greater area for the clay to fall apart whilst under spin. Three spaced out holes might cause a clay to fall apart more than one bigger hole, then again if they are spaced out too far they might not.

However, the problem with any theory lies with the different make up of clays from different manufacturers, a harder more brittle clay would react differently to softer less brittle clay. I remember shooting a flying rabbit at a section or championship shoot in Wales, you could hear and see the shot bouncing off it, one larger pellet would be a darn sight more effective than 3 smaller ones for that target.

In reality I personally want more 2.2mm shot in the air than less but bigger shot and it genuinely perplexes me as to why because I got very good scores with English number 7’s.

I believe an awful lot depends on orientation (more so than distance), the centre (I'm not as good as you with maffs and physics) to me seems to be less exposed to centrifugal forces than the outer edges ? for this reason alone I think any half decent conclusions about number and indeed kinetic energy required to affect a break must logically include where those strikes take place and as mentioned orientation. 

I too have no proof but would also prefer bigger shot for harder construction targets which are air borne. 

 

[Geordieboy]

What I can tell you is this.  When my labrador goes and retrieves me some clays (its his thing in summer when there aren't any pheasants around), on a quartering rabbit stand where the shot is hitting the clay at no more than 15yds, he has retrieved several clays with strikes on them, the best being 9 hits.  Now one could argue that my dog knows the ones which are either runners or actually dead,    however I always shoot big balls (7's) at rabbits, quartering or not!  I can also say that several AAA shots do the same!  So although my dog is rather intelligent, I learnt from him that I don't take a chance with soft and small balls......... and go all out with big and hard ones!   :wink:

 

[timps]

I believe an awful lot depends on orientation (more so than distance), the centre (I'm not as good as you with maffs and physics) to me seems to be less exposed to centrifugal forces than the outer edges ? for this reason alone I think any half decent conclusions about number and indeed kinetic energy required to affect a break must logically include where those strikes take place and as mentioned orientation. 

I too have no proof but would also prefer bigger shot for harder construction targets which are air borne. 

From a scientific perspective, there are so many variables each time we shoot a clay at different grounds (thickness and composition of clay, angle, velocity and mass of shot, rotation speed of clay, position of impact and temperature etc. etc.)  any tests would be pretty pointless and anecdotal at best.

As with most opinions in clay shooting that are backed up with physics and the like there is no  Precision and Bias conducted on what they claim, just a little bit of knowledge or anecdotal evidence. No one can tell you for sure what is the best shot size and how many is the minimum strikes you need for a break every time you take a shot.

It is why this perplexes me, I won’t shoot 9’s for sporting, because I did once and had a horrible score. I know it wasn’t the 9’s as the score was too bad for any targets hit by the fringe pattern but not broken. I won’t shoot 7’s for a full comp even though I scored well for a few shoots with them for reasons that completely flummox me.  

There must be a statistical best shot size for sporting clays but my guess is it covers a few different sizes before any meaningful difference occurs. I genuinely don’t know, but find it interesting why people choose one size over the other.
 

 

[Hamster]

From a scientific perspective, there are so many variables each time we shoot a clay at different grounds (thickness and composition of clay, angle, velocity and mass of shot, rotation speed of clay, position of impact and temperature etc. etc.)  any tests would be pretty pointless and anecdotal at best.

As with most opinions in clay shooting that are backed up with physics and the like there is no  Precision and Bias conducted on what they claim, just a little bit of knowledge or anecdotal evidence. No one can tell you for sure what is the best shot size and how many is the minimum strikes you need for a break every time you take a shot.

It is why this perplexes me, I won’t shoot 9’s for sporting, because I did once and had a horrible score. I know it wasn’t the 9’s as the score was too bad for any targets hit by the fringe pattern but not broken. I won’t shoot 7’s for a full comp even though I scored well for a few shoots with them for reasons that completely flummox me.  

There must be a statistical best shot size for sporting clays but my guess is it covers a few different sizes before any meaningful difference occurs. I genuinely don’t know, but find it interesting why people choose one size over the other.
 

I have actually done a fair bit of testing with 9's, not scientific but enough to satisfy myself that they really do run out of reliable steam past a certain range. Now that range would be all but impossible to gauge with any accuracy but it was defo within the remit of other shot sizes including 8's which performed flawlessly and it wasn't even all that far. This is enough for me to suggest using them makes little logical sense because at the shorter ranges where they arguably excel, other bigger sizes still offer effective density.

As for 7's, I have a certain soft spot for this shot size for pigeon both over decoys and flighting because evidence has shown me they will do everything a 6 does at ranges I consider morally acceptable, whenever I have used big loads of 5's my personal ratio has plummeted somewhat plus I found bigger shots too often meant a long walk to fetch dead birds that nonetheless flew on a good bit. 

When I have tried 7's on clays I invariably found the awesomosity of breaks to be affected at close to medium range but I also one too many times had 7's fail to deliver on long dropping stuff that 7.5's would have coped with I feel. This latter experience could be a matter of fluke and completely irrational.

 

[FreeShot]

Thank you all for the comments so far. I have (as most) voted for "to open". For me - instead of calculating the % I count the pellets inside the 30". The pattern from that target consists of ~135 pellets. As soon as count approaches 170 it begins to look fine for me - ~200 being optimal (takng into account that pattern is even without holes or clusters).

When I have tried 7's on clays I invariably found the awesomosity of breaks to be affected at close to medium range but I also one too many times had 7's fail to deliver on long dropping stuff that 7.5's would have coped with I feel. This latter experience could be a matter of fluke and completely irrational.

Funny - here are two targets - the one on the left has one of the nicest patterns I have got, the one on the right has that pellet count of ~170 that begins to look just right (it isn't that even tho). However that cartridge looks nice on the paper, for me it doesn't inspire any confidence out in the field (I gave it a fair chance) - I don't know why (completely irrational I guess -  but I just can't help it.