BkM? V. OF t. VZOAfiA-tXAIrtPAlSN 
868 
FOREST AND STREAM 
[Nov. 27, 1909. 
The Faculty of Judging Distance. 
Most men hold the belief that they are passably good 
at judging distance, and this innocent conceit endures 
because the opportunities for putting it to the test 
rarely occur in every-day life. That some lack the qual- 
ity is shown by the extraordinary variations which 
occur between the estimates of different persons, it 
would prove an interesting addition to the amusements 
provided at country house shooting parties for the host 
to measure up by means of an ordnance map the dis¬ 
tances from some vantage point to sundry prominent 
objects in the landscape, and set the guests to try their 
luck for some suitable prize. Questions of sporting 
chances and bullet trajectory frequently turn upon the 
precise degree of accuracy which can be relied upon in 
estimating the distance of game. , One cartridge might 
spell a miss when 300yds. is estimated as .,80, and an¬ 
other would strike home with a much larger error. 
The use of slow-moving bullets requires from the sports¬ 
man unheard-of powers of distance judging, whereas 
the man who advocates rifles with 3000 f.s. velocity, 
while admitting the importance of judging, distance as 
closely as possible, reduced the need for this faculty 
by taking full advantage of the latest improvements. 
To the practised rifle shot, accustomed to look across 
open country, with the range of many of the visible 
points clearly denoted, 200, 500 or any other number of 
yards up to 1000 , represent real values; in fact, slices 
of country he has traversed in all weathers, and spaces 
over which he has focussed the eye, and where he has 
swept the foreground, the middle distance, and the 
horizon with field glasses and telescope. Bisley com¬ 
petitors are the pick of the rifle-shooting world, and the 
sixty competitors left in the final stage of the Barlow 
competition represent a still more highly refined pro- 
duct It was therefore a brilliant idea to make the final 
stage of the Barlow a distance judging contest, pure and 
simple. In the interests of science and military effi¬ 
ciency, rather than to show the sad deficiency of the 
shooting man as a distance judge. Colonel Barlow 
afforded facilities for recording in detail the complete 
list of estimates, which are here reproduced. I he 
official score shows only the marks obtained, and the 
present detailed publication is an attempt to turn to 
general use information far too valuable to be wasted. 
Actual range in yards and 
competitors’ estimates. 
1250 
630 
430 
850 
550 
230 
Lt. the Hon. E Brabazon 1250 
700 
800 
800 
750 
220 
Color Seret. F W Cook.. 
1400 
570 
600 
580 
830 
230 
C P O I A E Woodward 1400 
600 
450 
800 
720 
240 
Cyc A G Fulton. 
750 
600 
850 
400 
320 
Lieut A L Ward. 
1500 
570 
420 
800 
460 
220 
Sergt-Maj D V Yorke.... 
1750 
650 
400 
900 
800 
200 
Pvt A B White. 
1S40 
560 
510 
800 
680 
290 
Pvt H E S Stiven. 
1400 
600 
350 
S50 
500 
230 
A S W Barber. 
1400 
400 
750 
900 
320 
Color-Sergt W Edwards.. 
050 
6 S0 
850 
750 
600 
400 
Pvt W Gray . 
1700 
1200 
450 
1050 
600 
350 
Pvt C W Wirgman. 
050 
900 
350 
1000 
650 
300 
Lieut S R McClintock... 
1200 
550 
340 
950 
600 
220 
Pvt P Ligertwood. 
1200 
800 
500 
750 
750 
320 
Color-Serert W H Corbett 1300 
6 S0 
4S0 
940 
720 
290 
POL Madge. 
1420 
720 
310 
1050 
900 
200 
Pvt E T Richards. 
900 
650 
430 
1000 
520 
200 
Pvt R Roche . 
800 
450 
700 
650 
200 
Lt G H Stubington. 
500 
400 
1500 
640 
270 
Lance-Corp. J. Grindel... 
1370 
700 
390 
S10 
790 
230 
Sergt T Smart . 
470 
1000 
1200 
1150 
630 
230 
Lance-Sergt W H O Hill. 
1760 
900 
700 
1000 
800 
400 
Color-Sergt W Hill. 
1300 
690 
360 
850 
8 S0 
280 
Corp H Moore. 
1900 
S20 
580 
980 
620 
400 
Gunner D R Paterson... 
1200 
6 S0 
1000 
850 
650 
300 
Capt R J Few. 
1400 
470 
420 
830 
570 
300 
Pvt J W Rawlinson. 
1550 
950 
660 
1450 
1050 
470 
Pvt H Blanchard. 
1500 
700 
470 
800 
750 
300 
Pvt G Good . 
900 
1000 
1150 
1100 
210 
Color-Sergt G Shake. 
1450 
750 
550 
900 
600 
270 
Sergt W Bauchop . 
700 
560 
830 
910 
320 
Lieut D Hattersley. 
. 1220 
800 
350 
1300 
750 
220 
Corp C Holdway. 
700 
1000 
820 
650 
480 
Pvt T W Campbell. 
1240 
700 
550 
1050 
950 
240 
Pvt H Mcllquham. 
750 
700 
700 
420 
350 
Pvt H S Price. 
. 1500 
1000 
560 
6 S0 
690 
360 
Lt R I) T Alexander... 
. 820 
950 
780 
820 
800 
620 
Lance-Sergt T Wilson... 
870 
560 
700 
800 
680 
200 
Corp R W Chater.. 
. 1200 
800 
500 
700 
1600 
300 
Sergt T Coverley. 
590 
480 
880 
750 
160 
Color-Sergt T W Field.. 
. 1100 
750 
300 
400 
850 
250 
Pvt E L Hopkins. 
650 
1500 
1100 
600 
300 
Pvt V McGuirk. 
. 650 
850 
450 
400 
1050 
90 
Corp G E Puckle. 
. 1540 
680 
450 
750 
1040 
280 
Pvt F C Thompson. 
. 9S0 
520 
440 
790 
680 
190 
Pvt E Darling. 
. 1850 
800 
330 
1150 
840 
200 
Sergt H P Chick. 
. 1750 
350 
500 
950 
500 
400 
Sergt A Paterson. 
. 1150 
1000 
330 
960 
1270 
350 
Corp H Britton. 
. 1240 
750 
600 
950 
900 
450 
Pvt W C Rundle. 
. 900 
1150 
550 
1220 
570 
420 
Sergt P Goodchild. 
. 950 
870 
770 
950 
1000 
450 
Sergt D Robertson. 
. 1700 
650 
540 
800 
1300 
340 
Sergt J Smith. 
850 
450 
730 
880 
270 
Sapper W Le Page. 
1220 
720 
550 
830 
230 
Sergt W Anderson. 
. 490 
940 
700 
820 
780 
330 
Lieut H C Jones. 
800 
500 
1000 
800 
370 
Corp H T, Botting. 
. 980 
1200 
920 
1350 
810 
540 
Color-Sergt T H Higgins 800 
690 
420 
1100 
980 
730 
Color-Sergt H J Webb.. 
1200 
660 
920 
1300 
370 
The conditions of the contest were, in some respects, 
well arranged, in others open to improvement. The spot 
chosen was the open heath-covered plain adjoining the 
Bisley ranges on the one side and the Pirbright ranges 
on the other. A post sunk into the ground indicated 
the zero from which all measurements were to be 
initiated. The competitors were lined out, fronting in 
turn each particular spot whose distance they were to 
define. When all was ready silence was enjoined, the 
signal was given, and at some distant point a man rose 
into view and called attention to his presence by the 
firing of blank cartridges.' Full liberty to use field glasses 
was allowed, and in due course each competing member 
wrote his estimate of the distance on his score card. 
The line then faced in some other direction, and the 
performance was repeated until six distances had been 
presented, variation being provided by placing the men 
sometimes kneeling, sometimes prone before the target 
was brought into view. The chief defect of the com¬ 
petition from a strictly distance-judging point of view 
was the great difficulty of locating so small an object as 
a man bv the mere sound of his firing. Small accidents, 
by way of obstacles in the foreground, easily concealed 
his position, and at the time it seemed wrong to confuse 
cHstance-iudging with irrelevant complications. Another 
query arises as to whether the principle of the competi¬ 
tion could not have been better carried out by abolishing 
the blank shooting altogether. The smoke was frequently 
visible, and the interval preceding the arrival of the sound 
wave introduced a further complication, viz., the oppor¬ 
tunity of testing distance by time intervals. Under prac- 
tical conditions, the best soldier or sportsman is the 
man who takes advantage of all available information; 
but if distance judging is to be cultivated as a fine art, 
it should be reduced as far as possible to a visual feat. 
The permission to use field glasses might easily be car¬ 
ried to the point of graduating the focus adjustment, so 
giving one competitor an advantage over his fellows. The 
first principle of range estimation should be the culti¬ 
vation of the eyes, and to promote this end extraneous 
aids should, if possible, be excluded. The greatest dif¬ 
ficulty is, of course, the selection of a piece of ground 
equally unfamiliar to all the competitors. The Guards 
camp at Pirbright is, of course, better known to officers 
and men in this regiment than, say, to the Glasgow 
volunteer. In similar fashion those who have wandered 
on a Sunday afternoon over this most attractive stretch 
of country will probably be familiar with most of the 
prominent landmarks and their approximate distances. 
The first point laid out for estimation was situated as 
nearly as could be judged in line with the Stickledown 
butts. Thus, 1100yds. of the total 1250 was practically 
measured out for those who had shot at these targets. 
Since this included most of the competitors, the variety 
of their estimates, as shown in the accompanying table, 
needs a good deal of explanation. There are several who 
placed the value at 1700yds. and over, and the number 
below 800yds. is surprising. ... , 
The system of marking scores, evidently broke down 
in the presence of the crude, notions which were forth¬ 
coming w'hen the estimates came to be examined. Six 
marks were given for the correct 1250yds., five for within 
50yds. and so on, down to one mark for those who got 
within 250 of the actual distance. Punishment thus 
broke down, long before the error had reached a maxi¬ 
mum, the score gradations failing to deal with the several 
degrees of error. With the other distances four marks 
appear to have been given for an absolutely correct 
answer. When the distance works out at a round number 
figure like 850yds., the shooter enjoys a fair chance of 
making top marks, but he fails when the mistake is 
made of taking note of odd values of distance less than 
50yds. Three of the situations chosen, no doubt for 
geographical reasons, were situated at odd distances, such 
as 630yds. The shooter guessing 600 or 650 should in 
sucli instances be credited with full marks, since to 
demand undue accuracy encourages guessing in the 
hope of here and there scoring a chance success. 
Statistics are supposed to be capable of proving what¬ 
ever each inquirer may desire; but they cannot mislead 
if no deductions are drawn. Accordingly, even the 
scores awarded have been omitted from the accompany¬ 
ing table, because their underlying logic is open to 
question. The actual range is set out at the top of each 
column, and the reader can carry the eye vertically 
downward to note the remarkable divergencies of indi¬ 
vidual opinion concerning the distance of each of the 
objects presented. The same process of comparison 
carried out in a horizontal direction shows in how few 
instances any single competitor displays consistency 
throughout the test. The order of merit on the list is 
determined by the aggregate scores in the two stages, 
and as the marks given for distance judging represent a 
very small proportion of the total earned, the arrange¬ 
ment may be regarded as very nearly haphazard. 
The total result, however regarded, teaches but one 
lesson, viz., that the capacity to judge distances is 
almost non-existent, and there seems to be very little 
prospect of attaining any approach to perfection. There 
is great danger that bullseye shooting will be further 
condemned, because errors of range estimation seem¬ 
ingly render nugatory any efficiency which may be at¬ 
tained in shooting at measured distances. Shooting 
practice would certainly be less beneficial than at present 
if the lesson which should result from each shot was 
lost every time a miss resulted from the target being an 
unknown distance away. When the shooter knows the 
distance of his target he can. as a rule, ensure hitting 
it, and oftentimes the bull with his sighting shot. When 
the distance is unknown the error is apt to, become so 
enormous that targets would need to be the size of a 
house to locate all the shots fired. The obvious con¬ 
clusion is that shooting and distance judging are sep¬ 
arate arts, which must be separately cultivated. To avoid 
diverging too much from the subject under discussion, 
this aspect of the question may be dismissed by saying 
that the adoption of an up-to-date military cartridge 
would in one stroke do more to promote accurate shoot¬ 
ing at unknown ranges than the allocation of the whole 
of the training period to range judging exercises. Range 
■judging, in other words, is a useful and necessary aspect 
of military training which has received far less attention 
than its importance justifies, but it cannot supplement the 
deficiencies of obsolete rifles and cartridges. 
From the point of view of the Scotch deer-stalker and 
the hunter of big game, it is interesting to have an 
accurate record showing the true extent of the possibil¬ 
ity of error in judging the distance of an animal. Rele¬ 
vant to this branch of the subject is the last distance 
which the shooters were called upon to judge. The 
actual range was 230yds.. and the man stood in full 
view against a background of fir trees, some 50yds. away 
from the gate where the competitors had entered the 
ground. Consequently they had traversed practically the 
very stretch of ground whose measurements they were 
asked to estimate. Fifty yards error on either side of 
the actual distance, might be regarded as within the 
limits of reasonably sound judgment, yet out of the sixty 
or so answers recorded twenty-five, or less than half, 
lay within this apparently ample margin. The com¬ 
petitor who guessed right received four marks, and in 
proof of the desire to be satisfied with small things, 
350vds. was awarded one mark. It would be very inter¬ 
esting to have a similar group of equally carefully re¬ 
corded statistics from parties of game shooters and 
others accustomed to walking over rough ground and 
in the habit of paying attention to distance.—The Field 
(London). 
Long-Range 12-Bore Cartridges. 
Perhaps more frequent than any other query addressed 
to the shooting department of this paper is the request 
for instructions as to the mode of charging cartridges 
for long-range shots at wildfowl, which are in the habit 
of observing an inconveniently respectful distance from 
the shooter. The general answer is to the effect that 
the killing distance of a cartridge is determined by the 
charge of shot it will carry, and that it is impossible 
to add to the range of the charge as a whole without 
unduly diminishing the chances of scoring a hit. Now, 
sound and logical as this non possumus attitude may 
be, it has several times lately occurred to us that a 
very slight modification of the point of view adopted 
would enable a different, but not necessarily better 
answer to be given to the problem there propounded. 
Taking, for instance, the case of a shooter in a boat, 
prevented from approaching nearer than a certain dis¬ 
tance to a flock of golden plover known to frequent a 
particular stretch of mud, the alternatives of leaving 
them in peace or firing at them from a range between 
50 and 60yds. need to be weighed and a decision promptly 
arrived at. The result of two or more barrels fired into 
the thickest mass of birds may well be that two, three, 
or even half a dozen cripples are left behind, while the 
rest of the flock takes wing, and perhaps circles round, 
giving the chance of a fine right and left, of which due 
advantage is taken. The ethics of this method of shoot¬ 
ing is not that of the pheasant or the partridge shot, but 
necessarily a specialized system which represents the 
only practical means of making a wary and toothsome 
species of bird contribute to the bag. It is no doubt 
hostile to the sporting sentiment to risk wounding so 
many birds, and to make several cripples for perhaps 
the one or two that are actually recovered after pain¬ 
fully traversing the intervening mud. 
Larger shot, such as size No. 4, undoubtedly increases 
the shock effect per pellet, but even this size produces 
disappointing results when the range exceeds, say, 
45yds. The question that then arises is whether the 
principle of increasing the size of shot used should not 
be carried to the furthest practical limit. It is, in 
fact, on this line that the present suggestions for load¬ 
ing long-range cartridges have been developed. A little 
table which was published about a couple of years ago 
established a most interesting relation between the 
various shot sizes. It is particularly difficult to give a 
clear wording to what is meant, but the principle 
adopted is to regard as standard for comparative pur¬ 
poses the striking energy of a charge of No. 6 shot at 
40yds. No. 5 has this same energy at 41%yds.; No. 4 
at 43yds.; No. 3 at 47yds.; No. 2 at 50yds.; No. 1 at 
52yds., and finally size B at 54yds. Now, B shot at 80 
to the ounce, has a weight of 5.47grs. per pellet, which 
compares with 1.61grs. for No. 6 . In other words, a 
size B pellet is nearly three and a half times the weight 
of a No. 6 pellet. Not only has it an excess on three 
times the striking energy of No. 6 shot, but in view 
of its greater power of overcoming air resistance this 
ratio exists for B shot at 54yds. as compared with No. 6 
shot at 40yds. Putting it in slightly different terms, 
one pellet of B shot at 54yds. is equal to more than 
three pellets of No. 6 shot at 40yds. Or, again, a 
charge of B shot gives the same energy at, say 55yds. 
as its own weight of No. 6 at 40yds. On the general 
subject of charges and pattern, the B size is particu¬ 
larly easy to deal with, in the sense that eighty pellets 
weigh an ounce, so that each sixteenth of an ounce 
consists of exactly five pellets. Therefore, the ordinary 
1 l-16oz. sporting charge gives the shooter eighty-five 
killing chances, say up to 55yds.. 
The argument might be extended to even larger sizes, 
but a little consideration will show that a practical limit 
is soon reached. For instance, if the charge con¬ 
sisted of twelve balls of buckshot the individual pellets 
would represent an unnecessary surplus of energy with¬ 
out any compensating advantages. It has been ac¬ 
cepted, or at any rate the _ statement has frequently 
gone forth without contradiction, that at least five 
pellets must hit a bird to insure a clean kill, or, 
equivalently, promptly bagging it. The underlying as- , 
sumption is that two or three of these pellets will hit the 
bird in non-vital spots, and that two at least must 
strike in critical places for one of them to take ’m- 
mediate effect. In favor therefore of the B size of shot 
is that it is, roughly speaking, as effective as any larger 
size when striking a non-vital spot, but under moderately 
favorable conditions it should be at least as effective as 
three pellets of No. 6 size. For instance, if a No. 6 
pellet broke a wing the bird would still be a runner, 
unless one of the other pellets took effect elsewhere. 
With the large size of pellet the ample penetration 
would give a considerable chance of reaching vital 
spots which the smaller sizes could not reach. On the 
general subject of reduced chances of hitting, the first 
argument is that the whole idea_ of such a load as the 
one here considered is to make it a “kill or miss” car¬ 
tridge, with a minimum of wounding effect. The other 
argument is that, while the chances of hitting an in¬ 
dividual bird at a considerable range are extremely small, 
the chances are multiplied by exactly the number of 
birds that occupy the area represented by the spread 
of the charge. Restricting the comparison to 55yds., 
