fenboy Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 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. I think if I was shooting that load the clay would deflect quite a way as it would just be dust drifting on the wind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 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. PM on way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neutron619 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? Ok - so here, you've fallen victim to my hyperbole and of course, a true right angle would be absurd for the reasons you describe. However the deflection was obvious enough that it was between 45 and 90 degrees from the clay's flight path, viewed from where I was standing perpendicular to it. An obvious deflection. I can't remember what the conditions were like on the day it happened, but here's a thought experiment. What happens if you launch a clay into an oncoming wind? We know the answer - it'll slow the clay progressively until it either becomes too unstable to fly and falls at random, or - it it's still spinning fast enough - it could conceivably stop it's travel and return back the way it came. At the midpoint of that flight, it's component vector of flight along the axis of the wind, will be zero. At that point, impact by any moving body - be it a beach ball, football or #9 shot from a direction perpendicular to the axis would therefore - by your own admission - change it's direction by a right angle (or more than a right angle, if we allow the wind to be constant and continue blowing after the shot). interesting, huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HW682 Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) Ok - so here, you've fallen victim to my hyperbole and of course, a true right angle would be absurd for the reasons you describe. However the deflection was obvious enough that it was between 45 and 90 degrees from the clay's flight path, viewed from where I was standing perpendicular to it. An obvious deflection. Rather, I think you have fallen victim you your own hyberbole. If you had just said you had seen a clay get deflected you might not have gotten so much questioning? As you said 90 degree is absurd. Greater than 45 degrees isn't much better. Edited January 31, 2015 by HW682 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neutron619 Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) Rather, I think you have fallen victim you your own hyberbole. If you had just said you had seen a clay get deflected you might not have gotten so much questioning? As you said 90 degree is absurd. Greater than 45 degrees isn't much better. Refer to thought experiment above. Given that I've given you a realistic scenario where it could occur, 90 degrees is now not so absurd is it? Edited January 31, 2015 by neutron619 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenboy Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 Thought , could etc is not in reality though is it , you seem to have gone from saying "I saw this happen" to " if you did this with this" it might happen , and yes 90 degrees is still absurd . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HW682 Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 I'll leave to it.............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neutron619 Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 Thought , could etc is not in reality though is it , you seem to have gone from saying "I saw this happen" to " if you did this with this" it might happen , and yes 90 degrees is still absurd . Ok - let's try to unpick these different strands of thought because obviously it's not DumbArse™ enough for you lot yet. Very simple really. Point #1: I did see this happen - if you'd like me to guess the exact angle of deflection, I'll go for 78.432 degrees. Complete guess, but hey - it was somewhere between 45 and 90 degrees and nearly a right angle. Point #2: By mechanism described above, a 90 degree (or greater) deflection is possible. I may not have seen an actual right angle deflection, but then I never said in my original post that I had... I still maintain though, that they must be of very limited use - the last time 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. ...nope - nothing there unless you smartarses think I (or anyone else) can correctly judge a 90 degree deflection to seven decimal places from a distance of 30+ yards, without instruments? Obviously I'm very flattered if you've based all of your recent objections on the assumption that I could and I'm obviously sorry to disappoint you if that's the case, but I'm afraid I just can't do that. There we have it. I'm terribly sorry, but when I said right angles, I simply meant to indicate "some noticeably large angle". The force may be strong in these ones, but the sense of inference is not. Apparently. The one objection I will stand for - not that anyone's yet raised it - is that of course, it would have been better if I had expressed the part in brackets of the post I've just quote above - that is, "i.e. right angles" - using "e.g." instead of "i.e.". It's now clear to me that you highly intelligent lot wouldn't have gotten nearly so confused if I'd not mixed up my id ests with my exempli gratias since you'd have all clearly understood that I meant to give an example rather than a literal indication. For this heinous crime against humanity (or those members of PW who are a part of it, at least) I can only apologise. Anyone else want to have a go? Best wishes and all that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenboy Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 You have spent a lot of time and effort without success trying to confirm to several people what you claimed happened really happened , since nobody is convinced we are now dumbarses. So yes you have sussed me out I am a dumbarse , but that does not alter the fact you are talking ******** . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inderraj Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 Anyone used Nobel Sport Italia? I normally use gamebore but got a different slab today Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenboy Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 Anyone used Nobel Sport Italia? I normally use gamebore but got a different slab today I have used a few different Nobel cartridges , all have been good value for money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inderraj Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 I have used a few different Nobel cartridges , all have been good value for money. Sounds good! thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motty Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 +1. Very weird - sounds more like something the Italians would use - they seem to favour (judging by some of the commercial loads produced by Fiocchi et al.) huge quantities of small shot. I'm surprised, frankly, that it'll do for any bids, big or small, past 20 yards. I've had clays "bounce" rather than break using #9 shot at that distance, so I can't think that they'd kill game well. You would do well to remember what you have already said........ 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...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted February 1, 2015 Report Share Posted February 1, 2015 Two of those links make interesting reading, the 2nd link unfortunately fails to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neutron619 Posted February 1, 2015 Report Share Posted February 1, 2015 (edited) You would do well to remember what you have already said........ Indeed: I'm surprised, frankly, that it'll do for any bids, big or small, past 20 yards. I've had clays "bounce" rather than break using #9 shot at that distance, so I can't think that they'd kill game well. Note "past 20 yards" - as in "further than 20 yards distant". (Note: birds are generally harder to "kill" than clays, so one would expect a cartridge to become deficient for birds before it became deficient for clays. Just a little tip for you there.) And here I am talking about the specific shot in question: And yet, in spite of your doubts, it still happened. Amazing. ... 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? Weirdly, in this world of 10 or possibly 11 dimensions, 30 is still a bigger number than 20. Pick it apart any way you like - there are probably 100 other inconsistencies in what I said - but it still happened and you still don't have to believe me. Your loss. I thought it was an amazing thing to witness. Next time I tell any stories like this, I'll obviously start from F = ma and go from there. Clearly assumptions of any kind are not permitted round here. Edited February 1, 2015 by neutron619 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motty Posted February 1, 2015 Report Share Posted February 1, 2015 Indeed: Note "past 20 yards" - as in "further than 20 yards distant". (Note: birds are generally harder to "kill" than clays, so one would expect a cartridge to become deficient for birds before it became deficient for clays. Just a little tip for you there.) And here I am talking about the specific shot in question: Weirdly, in this world of 10 or possibly 11 dimensions, 30 is still a bigger number than 20. Pick it apart any way you like - there are probably 100 other inconsistencies in what I said - but it still happened and you still don't have to believe me. Your loss. I thought it was an amazing thing to witness. Next time I tell any stories like this, I'll obviously start from F = ma and go from there. Clearly assumptions of any kind are not permitted round here. Guess what happened to me on a recent outing on the marsh. I winged a pinkfoot. On the way down, it swallowed a teal whole. Don't believe me? Your loss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenboy Posted February 1, 2015 Report Share Posted February 1, 2015 Guess what happened to me on a recent outing on the marsh. I winged a pinkfoot. On the way down, it swallowed a teal whole. Don't believe me? Your loss. Wow , thats amazing , a two bird roast without the effort, if only the teal had swallowed a snipe ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neutron619 Posted February 1, 2015 Report Share Posted February 1, 2015 (edited) Wow , thats amazing , a two bird roast without the effort, if only the teal had swallowed a snipe ! See - that there is the difference between us, right there: Because it's the decent thing to do, I'll take you at your word, but - we have this in common, of course - I'll keep a sceptical but open mind about it until I find something in the story I can't explain away. Seems a fair approach to me. In the case of the pinkfoot and the teal, I'd start by asking whether there was any way that the largest recorded pinkfoot could have stretched its oesophagus to fit the a teal of the smallest recorded dimensions down it. If it could be shown that such a thing were possible, I'd either have to find something else that made the situation you described impossible, or accept that you have actually witnessed a teal being swallowed by a pinkfoot. Obviously the chances are that if you tried to push or otherwise insert a teal into a pinkfoot's throat, it would quickly die of massive haemorrhaging or suffocation, but I would actually have to consider the story on its merits first, else I'd simply be demonstrating prejudice against something I don't "like". In the case of a clay being deflected (or not) it isn't that simple, is it? No obvious impossibility to point at and say "ha!", and the fact that - awkwardly for you - I have actually described circumstances in which a clay's path could be altered by a 90 degree angle. The thing is - you chaps haven't yet actually addressed anything in that suggestion in an effort to disprove it. Rather, you've just tried to shout me down and continue saying how much you disbelieve me. Ok, sure, you may have done all the calculations offline and have them ready to prove that my suggested explanation is impossible, but I'm yet to see them. If you'd taken my approach to an unlikely situation, that same explanation might have been enough to persuade you. Again, it might not, but if you'd approached the problem with an open mind and asked "how could this be possible?" rather than claiming - in your ignorance I'm afraid (and I mean that in the sense that you obviously haven't witnessed a clay being deflected in the way that I saw that day) - that it's impossible without making any effort to understand or argue whether that's the case or not, we'd all be having a better week.. I could just stand here and say "b*ll*cks" to your story of the teal getting eaten, but it's hardly fulfilling (or impressive) is it? I could look again at what you described: perhaps the teal was in fact a model of a teal and the pinkfoot did in fact eat it, because it happened to be made out of something tasty? Fish paste, perhaps. Again - see the open mindedness. Why choose to disbelieve something just for the sake of it? You might argue I have no evidence for what I assert, but where is yours? What evidence or proof do you have that what I say is impossible? I've never seen a McLaren F1, but I'm not going to stand here and try to argue they don't exist. Learn this lesson - it'll do you good: ask questions and see if someone has some answers. Surely better to ask the questions and try to discover whether it's at all possible than just writing something off because it doesn't happen to fit in with one's own world view. Or is there some fear of not knowing everything because you might "lose face"? Ok - I'll go first - I know that I know almost nothing about almost everything. Your turn - go on - it's easy. Admit you haven't seen everything, and that even 33 years of shooting hasn't taught you all the things there are to learn about it. I dare you. Or don't. Pretend that you know everything and that anyone and anything that contradicts you or your world view is wrong by default because if you haven't personally witnessed it, it must be wrong / evil / impossible. That approach - the opposite one to asking the questions and assuming you don't know everything - is known as "fascism". I recognise it all to well - it's unattractive at best and at worst, downright dangerous. You know - when the people who think / believe / claim to have seen something differently to you deserve to be publically ridiculed / punished / killed. Think about it. When you're ready to come back and discuss the mathematics of the thought experiment I proposed, please do. I'll be ready and waiting. With apologies to the OP. Edited February 1, 2015 by neutron619 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigeon controller Posted February 1, 2015 Report Share Posted February 1, 2015 Back to the original question , I use Proper Cartridges 32/6s which I find will drop birds at whatever distance I decide to shoot at, no complaints. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arley Posted February 1, 2015 Report Share Posted February 1, 2015 If you don't mind me asking were do you buy Proper Cartridges from in the West Midlands? I know DIA near Merry Hill were selling them but last time I asked they had sold out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigeon controller Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 If you don't mind me asking were do you buy Proper Cartridges from in the West Midlands? I know DIA near Merry Hill were selling them but last time I asked they had sold out. I have collected from George and he has delivered in the passed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tignme Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 (edited) +1. Very weird - sounds more like something the Italians would use - they seem to favour (judging by some of the commercial loads produced by Fiocchi et al.) huge quantities of small shot. I'm surprised, frankly, that it'll do for any bids, big or small, past 20 yards. I've had clays "bounce" rather than break using #9 shot at that distance, so I can't think that they'd kill game well. Way back in the day when i used lead loaded cartridges for pigeon i regurally used skeet no 9s to great effect shooting my usual 5/8 / 5/8 choke combo. I have a game book recording all pigeon outings over 30 yrs. Bag numbers did not change much regardless of the shotload. Even then my preferred load was a trap shell in seven n halfs.I shot birds out to 40 yds with confidence. Nowadays the same trap load in steel no 7s. No noticable change in bag numbers. Too many folks out there with way too much **** in their heads. OBTW ive shot competition clays for 40 odd years and never once seen a clay BOUNCED by shot. But then im 100% teetotal and mostly smoked them. Edited February 2, 2015 by tignme Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordieh Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 Its all in your heads bung a cartridge in pull the trigger if you are pointing in the right direction the bird falls down dead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cookoff013 Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 Its all in your heads bung a cartridge in pull the trigger if you are pointing in the right direction the bird falls down dead this isnt as clear cut as it seems. to be truthful, most shells out there are pretty decent, some even might do as advertised. however let me remind you that birds are shot a different distances and birds are shot with different speeds, different manufacturers (and homeloaders ) have different criteria as to what is a good shell. some guys just want something to come out the barrel, others want the shot to do as much damage as it can at 60yards. same with cartridge manufacturers.... (different product range) take the "intercomp" range by hull, fantastic shells (originally my favourite "economy" loading.) states on the box 1400fps. is cheap. http://www.hullcartridge.co.uk/intercomp.htm then take soverign. http://www.hullcartridge.co.uk/sovereign.htm both 24g loadings but one has way more recoil and more speed (yes the 2 are related.) dare i say they both can be used on decoyed targets, but i`m betting one will do better than the other. when certain factors are extreme, such as target distance. comparing the price..... intercomp £190/ compared to soverign £222. just to throw this in there its £250/ k for pigeon shells. now some of the youtube vids that people post here, it seems even "snapcaps" could do the job. i dont think all shells are created equal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 i dont think all shells are created equal. And all shooters are NOT created equal! 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.