With age, I think I would have to feel less and less desire to respond to the claims expressed by me to the thoughts and ideas of people whose expertise is just in these matters, I have the right to question. A pair of short examples.
It is a mature man with a great hunting experience casts doubt on my opinion about T03-34 as a good gun and lead, in particular, an example of «failure», in his opinion, the decision in the design of the shotgun — a method of fastening screws on the trunks of the forearm. This, they say, is very uncomfortable, because unscrew the screws at each gun cleaning — long and meshkotno. He was not aware that something unscrew the screws at each cleaning just is not only unnecessary, but not even by design. The fore-end is called — «removable», as «Russian and white» written in the manual for the gun. I would like if I then argue with a man who fell into the «controversy», he really did not understand the gun device?
On one of the hunting forums to my statement that the upcoming shooting, or testing, or checking the battlefield a few hunting rifles of different brands will occur on a large sheet of blank paper, painted with black in the middle of a circle with a diameter of 5-10 cm, followed by the imposition of the center of the debris pattern sto- or shestnadtsatidolnoy target caused wild laughter and sarcasm of «specialist». He said that in fact the «right» shooting should be carried out, inter alia, on target, made «hard copy.» What could I say that «experts»? He had no idea of the need to align the center of the shot debris from shot to shot from the center of the target, to achieve that, you can only fire on a sheet of plain paper measuring one meter on and then «artificial» registration is determined to face the center of the shot talus the center of the overlay template target. These basics of zeroing, repeated on many pages of manuals, for some reason, did not reach this «specialist» who nevertheless sought someone to learn something.
After reading the «critical» J. letter Adamenko, with whom I was acquainted editors, I allow myself to answer the main observations of the author, in which he, in my opinion, is contrary not only to me but to actually, and even common sense.
G. Adamenko statement: «First of all, never (italics mine. — IA) can not characterize himself …
especially when it comes to flattering qualities «- very controversial. Who says you can not? Adamenko? In this case — this is my own opinion of himself, but this technique is quite common in the works of authors and writers. It seems that G. Adamenko not a writer, and not even a writer like me, but simply «literary» critic. Be it a lot easier.
Grandpa newfound «criticism» once told him that he should be able to determine the causes of his blunders, and, most importantly, without this ability to determine the reasons for no one can become a good hunter. Here’s how easy it turns out. Can determine the causes of near misses — a chance to be a good hunter, I do not know how — would never become. I will say in response to his grandfather’s revelation: you can talk a lot! And thousands and thousands of the most common cases in which the normal, by and large — good — the hunter after the «poodle» scratches his head and throws up his hands and said, «And I am his (or her) missed do not understand …» — is Following his grandfather’s definition is probably just the case with hunters «bad.»
On the one hand, G. Adamenko has been criticized me for such a small amount of my blunders of hare (rabbit only!), Considering my words «bluff», and calling to their supporters’ experienced hunters «, on the other hand — he meticulously counts how much to centimeters anticipation of a running hare or a flying goose, forgetting — or not knowing! — That all of these «paper» calculations are not worth absolutely nothing in many cases of practical shooting of fast-moving game. He forgets (or, again, do not know) that the value of this very carefully because it is calculated to pre-empt the real situation on the hunt gunslinger determined completely intuitive and, above all, very much depends on the way or manner of shooting a particular hand.
In this regard, the last sentence in the letter Adamenko looks very strange: «And this anticipation is best when shooting with the leash when removed some delays in the shot. But the leash experienced hunters do not shoot (usually), so feel free to take a greater anticipation. Better times will pass in front of your shell game than you will be constantly accompanied by failures and wounded animal. Those who do not learn to take pre-emption right, do not shoot the side game, skip it and shoot in luugonnuyu. «
Carefully read this sentence, it becomes clear that G. Adamenko — just one «expert» who for some reason did not understand or did not know the basic, elementary notions about the ways of effective fire. It is well known even to many novice hunters, with little experience that the most effective shooting was «off the leash» and more — with a gun, moving more than a game, speed. It — progressive shooting modes. They are, if not go hunting, can be seen in the shooting stands. Generally, the higher the speed gun leashes, the less «visible» the value of pre-emption. But for some reason it Adamenko not know or understand, and declares that «the leash experienced hunters do not shoot» !!! This statement may cause genuine laughter at any hunter. But what they shoot, according to him ?! It is not difficult to understand, having read to the end of the phrase: «… so do not hesitate to take great anticipation.» Thus, according to Adamenko that «experienced hunters» shoot, obviously, with a gun, moving much slower target, or even a fixed gun, ie way, forever and ever, and in all the «guidance», «Manual» and «desktop» book is considered the least effective! In his «critical» letter has become a pose «policeman» (he positioned himself so) G. Adamenko advised to read the book MM Blum and IB Shishkin. Who? To me? Or novice hunters? I will say that I not only have two copies of the book — the publication in 1983 and 1994, but even I had to talk with MM Blum in the magazine. But «novice hunters» can by opening this book, for example, 1994 edition, page 286 to read: «… Seeing the approaching game, gradually raise their gun, take pre-emption, and without stopping the gun, pull the trigger … What to take pre-emption? No calculations are not possible here — in no time. Each bird in each situation flies at different speeds and at different angles with respect to the arrow; in different rounds airspeed different fractions, different wind speeds and distances. And as the time to consider everything and make the correct conclusion is not possible, the brain has to work at lightning speed, or slip provided. An experienced hunter intuitively, without thinking, takes pre-emption right. The development of such data makes shooting on the stand. «
That’s what they say classics. In the given word does not a description of the shooting was «off the leash» and the other way — intuitive shooting? And it says in this regard G. Adamenko? His «experienced hunters» shoot way slowpoke, fixed gun, taking pre-emption «more» in the strange belief that «the better your shell sometimes pass in front of the goal …» How can you advise this ?!
This, it seemed, could be over — what’s the point to refute the arguments of an incompetent person, a typical «theoretician» with a pencil and a piece of paper for calculations at the desk, moreover, ignorant of effective fire, but reading criticism Adamenko, find all New funny moments.
He can not believe that the shooting of «lateral» hare 20 meters, it is possible to aim at it directly in front of the muzzle! But this is — an elementary right, and so do most of the hunting. We must not only stop the gun when you press the trigger. But in 1949, when their hunting skills acquired J. Adamenko, apparently shot with a fixed gun, with a pre-selected point in front of the aiming target. And that — not all, but only «experienced hunters.» This method of firing (namely, its advocates as the best, Adamenko) actually long since outlived its usefulness, criticized by all the authors’ guidelines. » Even the description of him, to which somehow did not reach himself Adamenko, looks something like this: «Hunter stationary gun takes aim at a pre-selected point on the way of the beast or a bird, and when the target is close to her right, according to Hunter, distance shooting. Preemption thus very high and the probability of error in his determination increases. This — the worst way to fire. «
About G. Adamenko conclusion that I «behind the» hare shooting from 20 meters and aiming to face, especially for him quote from the excellent «Handbook Hunts-nick-Athlete» 1955 edition. «In determining the value of pre-emption is always good to remember the old advice of experienced hunters. They beat the hare taught,., Coming across at close range — the width of the palm of the head forward, and at greater distances — the housing and a half ahead … «What can I say? Many hunters never read not only the «Handbook», and nothing in this regard, though it and shoot — successfully! — Birds in our fields and in other places. I would like to ask G. Adamenko, «the width of the palm of your hand — it does not» front face «? Which to me the claim? And, on the other hand, recommended by you, calculated with pencil anticipation of hare with 35 meters and a half, and even 1.9 meters — is not a «quirk»? Above this advice laugh many hunters.
In other words, by recommending totally unproductive, wasteful way of shooting, Zh Adamenko, firstly confusing novice hunters. And secondly, it becomes clear his inability to believe, as much as possible of the thirty risen in the open field (and exactly what happens in 90% of cases in our hunts) «in moderation» birds fluff just one or two, maximum — three. This, my dear, «policeman», as you call yourself, is not such an achievement, and it will be able to repeat a lot of my friends, smashing plates 22-23 at the stand of 25, most of these targets is much smaller than the hare, flying much greater speed than it is running, and moreover, the simultaneous emission of vapors move in the opposite directions. And these people do not see anything unusual in the fact that this season they get a certain number of birds, missing only once, and then never … Actually, uncommon type of people who can not understand that they themselves can not afford and does not fit into their own calculations and reporting. With amazement accepted advice of such people «treat the nerves,» based on their own reasoning is not quite adequate. One time I was hunting in the company of a man, a good hunter with years of experience, no doubt a good shot at the bird and big game. He had two problems: it is very bad shot is a hare, making the often startling lapses in the normal range, it is absolutely easy to treat this, including numerous wounded game, and besides, he was prone to outbursts of nervousness on trifles . He is now reading this and can not confirm that for several years hunting with him, I did not at hare single miss. This — not a feat no and not «bluff», this — the simple truth. Apparently, G. Adamenko — in the same category unlucky shooters, so based on your own ability, and he can not understand how you can practically without missing beat jump into an open field at a normal distance of hares. The difference between my friends and home-grown «criticism» that at first still has a chance to learn to shoot, and the second — hardly.
My failures of geese in the rainy day G. Adamenko called «a joke.» He himself, of course, the same «bureaucratic» way to find out what the reason was the determination of the distance. Still, period, and there is nothing to even think. I suspect that in the life of the author of critical writing was a policeman. Too categorical and peremptory its conclusions and arithmetic calculations. It begins to seem that he himself during one of my shooting was standing beside a stern look and tracking what is happening, realizing as «an experienced hunter,» the cause of errors. Torrential rain and a huge uncomfortable cloak it into account, of course, did not accept. What for? Surely there must be science math, pencil and piece of paper. It’s simple.
And finally, the brilliant arguments G. Adamenko on the number of pads on the powder in the cartridge. Again, this confidence in their own terms, confirmed by reference to the book MM Blum and IB Shishkin. Simply said: the author once again showed their incompetence and, in addition, has been distortion of the facts. Let me illustrate.
Firstly, in the book, which refers to royalties made «policeman» (apparently she was the only one he had to read on this subject), to say nothing of the «within» the total thickness of shims on the powder, as stated by J. Adamenko. It is proved that the lack of thick pads negatively affect the fight guns (the rate drops sharply fraction), and concluded (quote): «… In view of these and other shootings, based on the experience of many hunters, has long been clear that the powder you need to put one or two cardboard wad total thickness of 2.5-3.0 mm … «
There are no «limits» were not indicated. Other guidelines expressly states that the total thickness of shims on the powder should be at least 2.5-3.0 mm. But the «policeman» a little juggling, he goes further and not only fantasizes about «opportunity gap stems from the excessive amount of shims» (established on my advice, of course!), But also directly accused me of providing «disservice» to millions of hunters. The author of the letter, and there is absolutely incompetent, he does not know the true reasons that could lead to the break barrel shotgun that without any voltage withstand any number of conventional cardboard pads placed on the powder. But Adamenko despises so much for the safety of our citizens, it considers it necessary to warn them about the non-existent danger. In addition, any normal person it is clear that, apart from the fact that the gaskets on the powder should be placed on the principle of «the more, the better,» I do not mean that they need to fill the cartridge top. But to put their «bundles» of 4-5 mm thick can be completely. I can say that at a time when I did not have at hand the standard wads — fibreboard or felt, I was cutting a large number of logging pyzhe-thick packaging «corrugated» cardboard and scored from it pyzhevuyu «stack» the desired thickness. These pads in this case played a role and wads and pads on the powder, as well as by a fraction. It’s okay that predicts Adamenko not happened and could not happen. What are «laying» put himself in their cartridges (can be made of rubber or incredibly hard cardboard?) That they were given accuracy of 30%. By the way, full sets of cardboard wads I applied only when arming ammunition for hunting irresponsible — for quail and dove. On geese and other more serious game cartridges were filled with all the rules, as I say in his essay. Adamenko, but I do not see it for some reason …
When you listen to the arguments of a man well versed in the issues being discussed, it is a pleasure, moreover, such a person there is always something to learn. It’s never too late, and not shameful. But when trying to put your words delirium, «bluff» or «joke» totally incompetent «theoretician», having a false notion — it is not surprising that it hurts. And here it is necessary or just to step aside or give to understand the «thinker» that his unshakable belief in the rightness of their own based on a failure to understand the truth.
In concluding his article, I want to appeal to young and novice hunters: I do not think thoughtful arguments and pointless warnings «experts» who think often stereotypes, distorted its own incompetence, mislead you up. It offers now — a huge amount of literature, but also — in truth the greatest achievement in the field of information — His Majesty the Internet. Communication with smart people, too, are extremely useful. But keep in mind that nothing should abolish the ability of your own brain to filter out the unnecessary and absorb reasonable. Learn how to separate the wheat from the chaff, as it is written in the great book. Successful hunts you.