TIGHTCHOKE Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 Also available in a 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DazzJo Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 Gamebore Black Gold Dark Storm 32g Size 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbrowning2 Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 I shot my .410 at clays before I sold it, I was using 14g #9 skeet cartridges and I had several crossers - at very modest range - sharply change direction (i.e. right angles) in mid air without breaking, because of impact by the shot. a new excuse, I should think if you did the science, suffient side impact energy on a clay to make it sharply change direction by a right angle in flight at speed, would be more than required to break it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pull2007 Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 Rc 2 24 gram on clays clear pigeon 6 30 gram Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neutron619 Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) a new excuse, I should think if you did the science, suffient side impact energy on a clay to make it sharply change direction by a right angle in flight at speed, would be more than required to break it. And yet, in spite of your doubts, it still happened. Amazing. Presumably when we throw the cricket balls at the coconuts at the fair and try to win our prizes, we expect those with the higher energy to merely knock the coconut off its stand, whilst those of lower energy obliterate it into tiny pieces? No? Well consider your assertion again Sir. 0.5ftlbs energy breaks a standard clay. I leave the calculation of whether a #9 pellet at 30-odd yards from the muzzle, projected at shotgun velocities still retains such a quantity of kinetic energy. If it does not, in what way is the energy transfer which occurs on impact with a clay likely to be demonstrated? Edited January 29, 2015 by neutron619 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motty Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 a new excuse, I should think if you did the science, suffient side impact energy on a clay to make it sharply change direction by a right angle in flight at speed, would be more than required to break it. I thought that. I have done a few rounds of sporting with nothing more than 9 shot in my bag. They still managed to kill the 40 yarders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neutron619 Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) Well - why I should indulge you doubters I have no idea, but I'll try and find the post where I first reported it on my usual forum. No-one there struggled to believe it had happened. Apart from anything else, the people there with me that day saw it happen just as clearly as I did, and we all put it down to the "poppy seeds" I was shooting. Edit: Oh - and it only happened twice - it's not as if every one of the 10-15 shots I took at those targets made them bounce. Edited January 30, 2015 by neutron619 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbrowning2 Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Well - why I should indulge you doubters I have no idea, but I'll try and find the post where I first reported it on my usual forum. No-one there struggled to believe it had happened. Apart from anything else, the people there with me that day saw it happen just as clearly as I did, and we all put it down to the "poppy seeds" I was shooting. Edit: Oh - and it only happened twice - it's not as if every one of the 10-15 shots I took at those targets made them bounce. A faulty batch of clays, with the mix wrong giving a hard clay? just may happen ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neutron619 Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) A faulty batch of clays, with the mix wrong giving a hard clay? just may happen ?? Conceivable I suppose. I put it down to the small shot and relatively long range (for a .410) but it could have been that. Sorry to the OP for pulling the thread off topic. Edited January 30, 2015 by neutron619 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motty Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Conceivable I suppose. I put it down to the small shot and relatively long range (for a .410) but it could have been that. Sorry to the OP for pulling the thread off topic. What has the calibre of gun got to do with it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neutron619 Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) What has the calibre of gun got to do with it? Regarding individual pellet energy on striking the clay and the effect that has on it - nothing, of course. However, I could have been shooting a 28g (or 33g) load of #9 out of a 12 gauge, or a 14g load out of a .410. The latter has a correspondingly sparser pattern, meaning that it's more likely that perhaps only one or two pellets will strike the clay rather than - say - four or five, or ten, or forty from a load twice the size. Follow my logic: the more pellets striking the clay, the more likely it is that one of them will have sufficient striking energy to break the clay. To "bounce" rather than break the clay is very unlikely because it requires no pellet strike to have sufficient energy to break the clay, yet for an impact to occur. The more pellet strikes there are, the less likely it is that a "bounce" will occur and the more likely the clay will be broken. Therefore a sparser pattern will give less likelihood of there being a "breaking strike" and may simply leave one or two lower energy pellets to bounce it without breaking it, once in a blue moon. Saying it was shot from a .410 implies all of that quite logically, starting with the smaller load, through sparser pattern and all of the probability work described above, but it seems that you can't say anything around here without someone objecting to it and demanding it all laid out step by step. Perhaps I'm wrong to assume that anyone else here actually has the capacity to work this stuff out for themselves. Edited January 30, 2015 by neutron619 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenboy Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Regarding individual pellet energy on striking the clay and the effect that has on it - nothing, of course. However, I could have been shooting a 28g (or 33g) load of #9 out of a 12 gauge, or a 14g load out of a .410. The latter has a correspondingly sparser pattern, meaning that it's more likely that perhaps only one or two pellets will strike the clay rather than - say - four or five, or ten, or forty from a load twice the size. Follow my logic: the more pellets striking the clay, the more likely it is that one of them will have sufficient striking energy to break the clay. To "bounce" rather than break the clay is very unlikely because it requires no pellet strike to have sufficient energy to break the clay, yet for an impact to occur. The more pellet strikes there are, the less likely it is that a "bounce" will occur and the more likely the clay will be broken. Therefore a sparser pattern will give less likelihood of there being a "breaking strike" and may simply leave one or two lower energy pellets to bounce it without breaking it, once in a blue moon. Saying it was shot from a .410 implies all of that quite logically, starting with the smaller load, through sparser pattern and all of the probability work described above, but it seems that you can't say anything around here without someone objecting to it and demanding it all laid out step by step. Perhaps I'm wrong to assume that anyone else here actually has the capacity to work this stuff out for themselves. No one else needs to , your the only person I have known to say that shot deflected a clays path in 33 years of shooting ! perhaps the clay ran into a large fly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stevo Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 the .410 ROCKS ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neutron619 Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) No one else needs to , your the only person I have known to say that shot deflected a clays path in 33 years of shooting ! perhaps the clay ran into a large fly See - that's what I love about pigeon watch. No interest in how something rare and unexpected could have happened; no careful thinking about what we observe and whether it's possible, probable or otherwise - just try as hard as we can to wind the other guy up because, obviously, he's a bare-faced liar with nothing better to do than come on to a public forum (known in other circles as the "bear pit") and deliberately invent a story likely to invite ridicule and disbelief for the sake of it. Read the post above, relating to probability, ballistics, etc. and ask yourself - does a man obviously as clever as this, make the kind of unusual claim I made above unless he's damned sure he knows what he saw and how it could be explained? Why would anyone subject themselves to the riff-raff on here unless they were confident in what they had to say? It's just not worth the aggro otherwise. I'm done with this thread. I know what I saw, the people I was with know what they saw, and the other people on ShootingUK to whom I reported it at the time had no problem believing it either. I therefore conclude that, for reasons of your own, you are simply attempting to waste my time or get a rise out of me, and I'm afraid I'm not going to oblige. Best Wishes and all that. Edited January 30, 2015 by neutron619 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motty Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Regarding individual pellet energy on striking the clay and the effect that has on it - nothing, of course. However, I could have been shooting a 28g (or 33g) load of #9 out of a 12 gauge, or a 14g load out of a .410. The latter has a correspondingly sparser pattern, meaning that it's more likely that perhaps only one or two pellets will strike the clay rather than - say - four or five, or ten, or forty from a load twice the size. Follow my logic: the more pellets striking the clay, the more likely it is that one of them will have sufficient striking energy to break the clay. To "bounce" rather than break the clay is very unlikely because it requires no pellet strike to have sufficient energy to break the clay, yet for an impact to occur. The more pellet strikes there are, the less likely it is that a "bounce" will occur and the more likely the clay will be broken. Therefore a sparser pattern will give less likelihood of there being a "breaking strike" and may simply leave one or two lower energy pellets to bounce it without breaking it, once in a blue moon. Saying it was shot from a .410 implies all of that quite logically, starting with the smaller load, through sparser pattern and all of the probability work described above, but it seems that you can't say anything around here without someone objecting to it and demanding it all laid out step by step. Perhaps I'm wrong to assume that anyone else here actually has the capacity to work this stuff out for themselves. You may think you're pretty clever. To me you sound a bit stupid. You claim that you've seen clays 'bounced' after being hit by no.9 shot at 20 yards! Good job no-one uses them to shoot skeet with, then. Oh, yeah, people do......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neutron619 Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 0.5ftlbs energy breaks a standard clay. I leave the calculation of whether a #9 pellet at 30-odd yards from the muzzle, projected at shotgun velocities still retains such a quantity of kinetic energy. If it does not, in what way is the energy transfer which occurs on impact with a clay likely to be demonstrated? No motty. See above: 30 yards plus. Oh, and - newsflash - small pellet fails to break clay at ordinary shooting distances: http://www.fourten.org.uk/rio.html No-one here, talking about larger American #9, seems to be in a state of disbelief that one could hit a target with such shot and fail to break (and therefore deflect) it: http://forum.gon.com/archive/index.php/t-241923.html Another chap who's found - shock horror - a shot-but-unbroken target at a clay ground: http://blog.chron.com/sportingclays/2007/03/another-common-sense-idea/ Took about 2½ minutes to find all those. Obviously I'm paying the people who wrote all those articles to say that stuff so I don't look stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenboy Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 I think you are changing the subject , from clays being deflected to clays being shot but not broken , I have seen plenty of clays with holes in but intact , does that mean each one of those was deflected off course ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dangerzone Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 Clever Mirage 30.5g 6...fantastic fast, sweet, smith shell!!! When I'm needing a bit more knock down power late season, Clever Mirage 32g 5's👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbrowning2 Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) Sounds like a job for the mythbusters team to investigate. I think I read once that you will never pick up a shot clay with more than 4 holes shot in it any more pellet hit and a certain break. And I think it would be like winning the lotto for 4 pellets to not break a clay but change its flight path by 90 degrees but I wil keep an open mind. Best cartridge my own home loads 😊 Edited January 31, 2015 by rbrowning2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neutron619 Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 I think you are changing the subject , from clays being deflected to clays being shot but not broken , I have seen plenty of clays with holes in but intact , does that mean each one of those was deflected off course ? Absolutely and with a little bit of my help, you'll be able to understand why shot but not broken clays are significant. When those clays got shot, energy got transferred into them right? Had to have done - otherwise there wouldn't have been holes in them when they landed. Next step: some of those clays probably didn't have just holes in them, right? Maybe a few chips out of the surface? So, let's say they did - that means that something hit them, transferred some energy into them, then bounced off. That is, assuming we're not going to accept the "massive fly" argument that someone suggested earlier. In the above example, if the shot bounced off the clay - chipping it, perhaps, but not breaking it - then Newton's second law says that energy which was expended must have created an equal and opposite force in the clay. Given that air resistance in the case of a flying clay is not particularly significant - they're aerodynamically stable (which is why they "work") - the energy imparted by the collision will have deflected the clay, at least to some degree. That must be obvious. Let's invent some arbitrary numbers (because I don't have the real ones to hand) for the average energy of a #9 pellet at any given distance. Let's say that 99% of the pellets fired have an energy of 1.0ftlbs or more at 20 yards from the muzzle and - for argument's sake - that 99% of the pellets fired have an energy of 0.1ftlbs or less at 50 yards form the muzzle. At some point between those distances, the majority of the pellets are going to have less than the 0.5ftlbs required to break a clay. This means that if they hit a clay, they'll either put a hole in it, chip it or deflect it (or all three). The point is, as distance increases and pellet energy falls, more and more of the pellets in the pattern are going to fall below the energy required to break the clay, until eventually, they all do. At that point, puncturing, chipping or deflection are the only things that could happen, regardless of the number of impacts - the energy for a break just isn't there. I have no doubt that if one had the skill of shooting required and loaded up a 3½" shell with 50-odd grams of #9 that you could shoot that 50 yard crosser with a full choke and that it would bounce or deflect often enough to make the effect measurable. No pellet in that insanely dense pattern would have the energy to break the clay, but many would strike it, no doubt imparting energy and causing a change in direction. The above assumed, a lighter load makes it less likely (fewer possible impacts from a sparser pattern); a shorter distance makes it less likely (more energy so more likely that at least one pellet will have sufficient to break the clay). Neither makes it an impossibility, however. I don't see how I can make it any clearer - except perhaps to caution anyone reading to note that in the situation described above, five impacts on the clay of 0.1ftlb energy each will not have the same effect as a single strike of 0.5ftlbs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HW682 Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 Any clay hit by a pellet will be deflected, that is a given. (Even if it is too small to be noticeable). The bit I am struggling with is a claim that it is deflected by 90degrees which means that it's velocity in it's original direction is reduced to zero. To do that by hitting a crossing clay in the side is surprising. Even a 45degree deflection means it moves sideways at the same velocity as it's forward direction. Unless I am missing something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stevo Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 im lost Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbrowning2 Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 I'm with HW628 the energy withing the moving clay (e=1/2*m*c*c) given the mass of the clay and it's speed will be significantly greater than a single or four or five #9 shot pellets and hence very unlikly for a few pellets to result in a noticable deflection of the clay. However given that a clay is brittle the total enery of a several or more pellets hitting the clay would break it not deflect it. But anythink is possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 on my usual forum. Is that the one you've just left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neutron619 Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 Is that the one you've just left. It is - it's being progressively taken over by members from the USA who keep trying to turn it into some kind of NRA-lite, "let's all go buy assault rifles" kind of place. Whatever I think of that or their views on gun control, it's rather spoiled it as a place to "hang out" - for me, at least. Didn't know you were a member there too, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.