Jump to content

timps

Members
  • Content Count

    1,673
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About timps

  • Rank

  • Birthday December 21

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • From
    Bury

Recent Profile Visitors

972 profile views
  1. I don’t doubt it Hamster, it’s why I have said we are all different, and there is no one cure for every instance, the paper linked quite clearly states that Stimulus selective response potentiation for one eye was seen in some rather than in all cases. However the research seems to state that while everyday pointing or suchlike you will be left eye dominant but with the stimulus you have trained with (gun or bright bead) you will be right eye dominant and the neurons that transmit this stimulation will have been upgraded but not necessarily any other of the neurons making you only dominant to the intended stimulus. I am in no way inferring you have changed dominance or been upgraded only that it certainly can be done in some instances and it gets quite heavy on the details so I have never bothered reading further.
  2. There has been a lot of rubbish written about eye dominance, I spent a fair while sifting through it and posted most of the relevant scientific papers (not old wife’s tales) on a very long thread on shotgun world a few years back, not that it did any good. True eye dominance is governed by the neural pathways and the visual cortex, this was the sticking point until a few years ago as it was thought eye dominance was set for life once adulthood was reached. Subsequent research, however, proves ocular dominance plasticity exists in adults so dominance can be trained or shift natural either by trauma or stimulation. The ocular dominance of binocular neurons in the visual cortex is actively maintained by competition between synapses serving the two eyes. The dominant eye has in layman’s terms a fibre-optic connection while the non-dominant eye has dial up. The brains default setting is to pick the faster connection and fill in the missing bits (things the dominant eye cannot see) with the dial up connection. Simplistic way to alter dominance was to deprive the dominant eye for a while by use of an eye patch or occluding the eye and the brain would rewire the dial up connection to fibre-optic. The same process can happen through age if the dominant eye is not giving the visual information the brain requires, it rewires fibre-optic to the other eye to compensate. However, with Stimulus selective response potentiation:- (Perceptual learning, resulting in improved perception through repeated sensory experience, occurs in adults as well as children. This broad category of learning is characterised by an exquisite selectivity for the experienced stimulus.) The thinking has changed a bit, the above is how brain training works, how the D Rail, easy hit work and can explain dominance shift in some adults. Basically, it has been noted in some instances, gains in perception can be restricted to the eye through which the stimulus has been viewed. If only one eye can see the sight then it alters the pathways to see that sight quicker even in a non-dominant eye, bearing that in mind it also sees the rib and clay through that eye making it the dominant eye should that stimulus come into view (i.e. as you mount the gun). Obviously, there is a case as in my instance where dominance switches due to eye condition. For me one eye sees close for reading and one sees distance, my brain switches to my right eye due to Stimulus selective response potentiation and training so the right eye always sees the rib, the brain then does the rest with the left eye to see the clay. If I wear prescription glasses which has a distance lens in my right eye then all is carried out by the right eye. This is one of the reason there is no one cure for every instance we are all different. There are a lot more papers on it but a bit of light reading here😁. It shows that there is clear evidence that Hebbian plasticity may underlie adult perceptual learning so dominance shift and dominance training can and does happen. Last time I posted about this in this detail on shotgun world it caused 10 pages of dominance can never change posts 🤣 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22019003 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2013.0284 https://www.jneurosci.org/content/jneuro/26/11/2951.full.pdf
  3. With extremely heavy chokes I can and did notice the difference. My Browning B425 ultra xs had extended Midas chokes which seemed to be made out of the heaviest substance known to man combined with the heavy barrels made it very noticeable. Without them in the gun felt much better, with them in it felt like a pig on a shovel. So I bought some lighter and ported to reduce even more weight extended chokes, the gun did feel better, however, I got to despise ported chokes with a passion even though the gun felt better. With my DT10 I never noticed the difference between Standard, Muller or flush Teague so just put it down to the ridiculously heavy Midas chokes.
  4. My guess is he got his wires crossed, the law did change in 2017 on needing authorisation in writing from land owner/ lease holder to lend a non licence owner a gun even if the said owner was present it still has to be in writing. However using your own gun is not mentioned in that bit of legislation so non needed if you have a shotgun certificate. A little knowledge is dangerous 2+2=7 springs to mind.
  5. Still doesn’t alter the fact you need specific written permission from the farmer to lend your gun to others. Unless you are in a position to tell the farmer who can and cannot shoot on his land.
  6. Without written permission from the farmer stating you can lend your gun to others and you fall foul of the above act. Verbal permission is not allowed under the act it quite clearly states it.
  7. Just to clarify the exact wording of the act is :- The first condition is that the borrowing and possession of the rifle or shot gun are for either or both of the following purposes— (a) hunting animals or shooting game or vermin; (b) shooting at artificial targets. (3) The second condition is that the lender— (a) is aged 18 or over, (b) holds a certificate under this Act in respect of the rifle or shot gun, and (c) is either— (i) a person who has a right to allow others to enter the premises for the purposes of hunting animals or shooting game or vermin, or (ii) a person who is authorised in writing by a person mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) to lend the rifle or shot gun on the premises (whether generally or to persons specified in the authorisation who include the borrower). (4) So on a farm you either have to be in a position to control who does or doesn’t enter the premises for shooting or have written authority from the person that does have that authority stating you can lend your gun to others either directly named or anyone in general . Permission to shoot even if you are the only one allowed is none of the above.
  8. The original amendment was in Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997: Then subsequently The Firearms Rules 1998 So it’s been worded like that since 1998. In regards to the police turning a blind eye many probably did however after several audits and check up on procedures that is not the case in many areas now with RFD’s being threatened with revocation.
  9. My guess is back in the day no one cared so people just did it. Now with accountability it’s a different matter. I know in my area if they saw your certificate once you could buy carts without ever producing it again. Then GMP had some kind of audit and issues were identified and a total review of firearms was instigated on the back of it, now everything is by the book common sense out the window and your cert is at risk if you don’t follow the rules to the letter. They did give RDF’s a massive wake up call to toe the line. This has now caught on with other areas so what was once overlooked is now not. But if you live in an area that is not as keen as others you can still be a bit more lax.
  10. The legality is clause 3 of your certificate which says. If you are selling a firearm [or shotgun] which will be sent or posted to another dealer for the buyer to collect in person you should complete this table and notify the police. The dealer who actually hands over the firearm should not complete the table or notify the police (except in circumstances which may require police investigation as above). If you have personally brokered and advertised the sale then that’s the law you and the RFD’s are breaking, if the final RFD brokers, advertises and sells the gun then no law has been broken, like auction house or sale or return. However, in the case you have outlined the gun has already been sold before the final RFD knows about it therefore you are legally obliged to follow clause 3, in law you can’t pretend you haven’t sold it and the RFD has, that is not the spirit of the above law and any judge would take a dim view of it if it was ever proven that's what you did. The sticking point for the police is proving you sold it and are now pretending the final RFD did. It is a gamble, you may or may not convince a jury that everyone is innocent, and they have to prove beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction which might be very hard with your scenario indeed. However, Firearms departments can revoke a certificate or RFD without a court case and just on the balance of probabilities. Therefore, any FEO looking in depth that sees a shooter gifting an expensive gun to an RFD who immediately gifts this gun to another dealer who then gifts that gun to anther shooter in a very short period of time miles apart knows this is not how business make money or work and may revoke on the balance of probabilities if this practice continues without the need to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. The money going through the RFD’s books as sold is more believable but this does have tax and liability issues for the RFD’s involved. If the police then link the dots due to looking at the books and finding no commission, no profit and only transfer fees therefore deem the certificate holder brokered the sale personally then you fall foul of clause 3 again. As an individual certificate holder chance of getting caught are low, as an RFD that is continual doing it the chances are higher, however if the certificate holder has sold the gun to be collected from an RFD in law he can’t pretend he didn’t just to get around the conditions on his cert. Therefore if you actually admitted to the judge your scenario you would fall foul of the law, but the police trying to prove it might be hard without that admission.
  11. I’ve not read that book so will give it a look over that’s for sure. In response to hamster’s OP the training is along the lines of my own so I agree with what you say. The only difference is I also did a lot with pointed fingers, broom handles etc. Every day repetitively throughout the day. I’d swing left to right then right to left try and stop on a lamppost, telegraph poles etc. with both eyes open. I’d then shut my left eye and see if the sight picture moved. At first I only saw one sight picture so it was hard, then I started to see 2 sight pictures, then I could pick and choose, now I see only one again but instead of left it’s right.
  12. To be fair to the book it was written in 1984 and the reason why it was thought you could not change dominance was due to the brain being hard wired after the critical stage. If you had asked neurologists could the pathways be rewired in an adults in the late 70’s early 80’s then most would have said no due to the research of Hubel and Wiesel who even received the Nobel Prize in 1981 for their work. Ask the same question now and it is accepted due to the proven research from the likes of Michael Merzenich, Jon Kaas and Doug Rasmusson yes it can and has been done. A lot of the research has been centred around vision and dominance recently. The trouble with that forum is bring a new double choke with a sideways twist on the market and some vocal posters will tell you that it instantly gets you ten targets. However, criticise a book written in 1984 and the same poster will say you are Beelzebub’s love child and recite something abut the Boston tea party proving why all limey's are wrong😀 .
  13. It was me, I even posted about it on here first and described my method. The shotgunworld post ran into quite a lot of pages and despite the numerous scientific journals and papers published that I linked backing my claim to be true due to Neuroplasticity in adults, a book "An Insight to Sports Featuring Trapshooting and Golf " which was published (1984) was the only thing our American cousins would believe. Basically, according to them medical science and the understanding of how the brain worked stopped in 1984 when this book on Trapshooting and Golf was published and any subsequent research published by very eminent scientists means absolutely nothing.😂 Whether I trained it as a learnt dominance or if the visual cortex did indeed physically change won’t be found out on me unless you pull my eyes out and see my visual cortex. However, the research I posted on that thread and subsequent research that wasn’t available at the time proves you can change dominance by reactivating juvenile like ocular dominance plasticity in adult rats and cats. The tests proved ocular dominance plasticity in the adult visual cortex could be reactivated by wearing an eye patch / blocking off a healthy eye for a very short period and it was a true physical change to the visual cortex that could be physically measured. My post at the time was just to prove that dominance is not set for life as some people think and can be changed in adults by wearing an eye patch constantly for a few weeks / months, although I have no idea how long it would take in humans compared to rats / cats as that's not the way I did it. But the papers did state that if you could train your brain to use a particular eye then the extra use of that eye would indeed change the pathways as it was being used more. In my case I was clearly left eye dominant now I’m right eyed, the two schools of thought are a physical change to the visual cortex or subconscious learnt superimposed dominance. Both are plausible and have been proven, as to which I have isn’t going to be found out soon as I like my eyes in my head for the time being, however, if you run any of the normal dominance tests on me now then I am right eyed dominant and I don't have to think about it. It is a very interesting subject to say the least.
  14. There are a lot of things that can increase or decrease velocity the question is whether the drop is meaningful in the real world. In terms of barrel length and porting most of the meaningful acceleration is carried out in the first few inches however like you say if there is a pressure differential behind the wad then there is a force still acting on the wad therefore it continues to accelerate but at a reduced rate compared to the first few inches. If the ports are so large, they are able to dissipate all the pressure before wad reaches the end of the barrel the wad will slow due to friction. However, if the ports don’t dissipate all the pressure it will continue to accelerate but at a reduced rate depending on how much pressure is dissipated. In terms of figures Neil Winston found that in a 30-inch barrel that there was enough workable pressure to cause increase in velocity between full choke and cylinder due to Giovanni Battista Venturi’s principle:- “The average increase in the measured speed through the full choke compared to the cylinder choke is about 50 fps.” “The speed-increasing effect of choke began with the smallest constriction, 0.005 inches. As the degree of choke increased, so did the speed,” “the tighter the choke, the faster the reported speed.“ http://www.claytargettesting.com/study2/pages/study2a.html Now in the real world 50 fps difference is nothing but it does prove there can be a difference in velocity at the end of a 30” barrel due to pressure. Therefore dissipating this pressure by ports will cause a decrease in velocity, whether this is ever noticeable to the shooter is a whole other question.
  15. I did read it a bit back, I was interested in atmospheric pressure and did it effect the pattern in any noticeable way. Neil Winston did some tests on Central Thickening at altitude and the decrease in air pressure did tighten the centre of the patterns significantly. But as I doubt, I’ll be shooting at the 7000ft he used anytime soon it was just out of academic interest for me.
×
×
  • Create New...