Interesting article in Clay Shooting Magazine

[ips]

Brilliant post wonko, all of which i totally agree with

 

[Doctor Lecter]

George and Richard are both exceptional shots  whatever style they employ      but ours is a numbers game  at the end of the day  who has won more ?    factor  in age ,  opportunity  to shoot etc  ,    I certainly wont live long enough  to see George digweeds world titles tally ever beaten !  :super:  

 

[Salopian]

dr. lecter , I think you might .

Compare George & Richard's records.

 

[Hamster]

Hamster, ( and anyone else interested).

Have a look at 'Shooting Style ' by Michael Yardley on his website 'Postive Shooting ' ( Google it) although promoting himself he does touch lightly on both Stanbury & Churchill.

Churchill was a well built man ( George ?) Stanbury was a slim elegant man ( Richard?) 

Stanbury taught at West London , all types with the emphasis on Game and Sporting Clays , Churchill was a renowned Trap & Live Pigeon shooter who developed an instinctive style as he knew where the bird was being presented from , so needed a square balanced stance required to shoot quickly and instinctively at Trap type targets .

Possibly one of the finest books written on Instruction is now 140 years old , ' The Art of Shooting ' by gunmaker Charles Lancaster but actually written by H A A Thorn .

The method adopted by the CPSA & BASC is 'The Method ' actually promoted by Clarence  'Clarrie' Wilson  a disabled shooter who owned and ran Little Mill Shooting Ground  near Stockport.

The Method is as follows , establish the visual pick up point , determine your gun hold point , lock onto the target , move with the target, slightly pull away (to create lead) and shoot, continue to swing ahead to avoid stopping the gun , gun down and unload.

I think it may be correct to say that all other methods have evolved to allow us to get a a more positive relationship with the target .

As for eye dominance and its effect ! Well that is a whole new can of worms .

There are more than one subject being discussed here and they're not necessarily interconnected but I have questions already :

It's no exaggeration to say it would take thousands, perhaps half a million shots before one comes to have a meaningful and authoritative grasp of the art of hitting moving targets or "flying shooting" as it used to be known. I'm intrigued as to how such heady heights of mastery were reached back when clays had yet to be invented, I mean yes of course one can learn on flushed snipe or crossing pigeon, even with a slow muzzle loader and black powder  but to get the sort of wisdom that would carry through to present day they'd have had to be able to have access to repeatability and sheer volume shooting of today which they didn't. Hence my intrigue. 

The method is nothing more than what thousands of us would automatically come to teach ourselves (without ever being aware it had a "name" claiming credit for it), in fact it is simply one of many, I hope I'm forgiven for not giving too much undue credit where it's not necessarily warranted. 

The Wright brothers were the first to successfully build a flying object but they weren't the first to think of defeating gravity. As much as I adore pioneering engineers and inventors I wouldn't go as far as to describe their early scribbles as some of the finest work on aerodynamics either, not because they were incapable but simply because back then they had no knowledge of what its effects would be.

 

[Nimbusgb]

The Method is as follows , establish the visual pick up point , determine your gun hold point , lock onto the target , move with the target, slightly pull away (to create lead) and shoot, continue to swing ahead to avoid stopping the gun , gun down and unload.

And just how does that work with say, a left and right crosser? 

All fine and well on the first target but the second completely defeats this 'process' apart from 'lock on to the target, move and pull away'.  

 

[Wonko the Sane]

And just how does that work with say, a left and right crosser? 

All fine and well on the first target but the second completely defeats this 'process' apart from 'lock on to the target, move and pull away'.  

There is no mystery there.  The first shot is the idealized situation.  The second shot merely accommodates the already in-the-air target.  The very same situation would apply to ANY process determined methodology for shooting.  And of course that would be EVERY shooting methodology regardless of its complexity or lack of it.

Pretty sure that is not JMO but a simple fact since every shooting game participant has some methodology whether conscientiously codified or not.  Ask anyone for advice and they'll tell you, "this is how I do it."  Betcha.

 

[Salopian]

Hamster ,

 Look up the shooting history of Lord Ripon , and suchlike , you will be amazed at the repeatability of their shots . 

 

[FlyingTrotter]

Take a look at some game cards on the walls at some historic shoots and it’s quite astounding - gives a whole new meaning to the term “big bag”

 

[Hamster]

Hamster ,

 Look up the shooting history of Lord Ripon , and suchlike , you will be amazed at the repeatability of their shots . 

Famed for having ordered exhausted grouse be driven back and forth over him so he could kill some obscene number I care not even try and remember in a single day. Fine driven game shot no doubt but you and I both know he'd have been made to look like an amateur by a B/A class shot of today. 

Take a look at some game cards on the walls at some historic shoots and it’s quite astounding - gives a whole new meaning to the term “big bag”

Yes it does make depressing reading at times, whether either spent grouse or floppy phessies quite prepare you for knowing what to do with a looping battue or angled teal is the question. 

There is little doubt the privileged had the wherewithal to shoot thousands of close driven birds, the question is whether that would have qualified them for writing some of the "finest instruction books" that apply to much today. 

 

[ips]

Famed for having ordered exhausted grouse be driven back and forth over him so he could kill some obscene number I care not even try and remember in a single day. Fine driven game shot no doubt but you and I both know he'd have been made to look like an amateur by a B/A class shot of today. 

Yes it does make depressing reading at times, whether either spent grouse or floppy phessies quite prepare you for knowing what to do with a looping battue or angled teal is the question. 

There is little doubt the privileged had the wherewithal to shoot thousands of close driven birds, the question is whether that would have qualified them for writing some of the "finest instruction books" that apply to much today. 

Its an interesting observation thats for sure. I did read of partridge being driven back and forth until they had all but been shot, never read about "spent" grouse though. I wonder what the victorian game shooters considered a sporting bird ?

 

[schmokinn]

Its an interesting observation thats for sure. I did read of partridge being driven back and forth until they had all but been shot, never read about "spent" grouse though. I wonder what the victorian game shooters considered a sporting bird ?

One that had feathers by the sound of it!

 

[Jonny English]

Its an interesting observation thats for sure. I did read of partridge being driven back and forth until they had all but been shot, never read about "spent" grouse though. I wonder what the victorian game shooters considered a sporting bird ?

One with 2 feet off the floor!

 

[Wonko the Sane]

Fine driven game shot no doubt but you and I both know he'd have been made to look like an amateur by a B/A class shot of today. 

I'm not a real fan of Ripon or any other of the big time driven shoot folks but I'd be slow to discount someones talent so quickly.  So here's a shooter that used three guns and three loaders and practiced with the loaders at night so as to improve performance.  I'd be guessing that someone like that and a few of his mates likely had the talent/ambition/ego to be the equal of most anyone besides maybe the superstars.  Certainly no way to know but with modern guns, modern ammo, etc ...................  know what I mean?  But really, who GAF?  Different times, different people, different places, different world.

 

[Hamster]

I'm not a real fan of Ripon or any other of the big time driven shoot folks but I'd be slow to discount someones talent so quickly.  So here's a shooter that used three guns and three loaders and practiced with the loaders at night so as to improve performance.  I'd be guessing that someone like that and a few of his mates likely had the talent/ambition/ego to be the equal of most anyone besides maybe the superstars.  Certainly no way to know but with modern guns, modern ammo, etc ...................  know what I mean?  But really, who GAF?  Different times, different people, different places, different world.

Yes I accept the critique, the gist of my comments though have been to compare them (and their skill set as was) to todays. He and others in his place may well have had the will and perhaps even the talent to live with todays presentations but my point is if you practice and partake in mainly incomers and mid height game then guess what you will prolly only excel at that. 

 

[Wonko the Sane]

but my point is if you practice and partake in mainly incomers and mid height game then guess what you will prolly only excel at that. 

I'd suggest that capability is not determined by a singular activity.  What one excels at in no way limits what one might excel at.   No realistic assessment of capability can be made until the individual actually attempts a different activity.  Simply because Ripon and others shot only driven in no way implies that they would have been incapable of anything else.  I know a couple of people that shoot only box birds.  I have no doubt of any kind that they would be successful at any shotgun game.

 

[Hamster]

I'd suggest that capability is not determined by a singular activity.  What one excels at in no way limits what one might excel at.   No realistic assessment of capability can be made until the individual actually attempts a different activity.  Simply because Ripon and others shot only driven in no way implies that they would have been incapable of anything else.  I know a couple of people that shoot only box birds.  I have no doubt of any kind that they would be successful at any shotgun game.

If you'd read through all my posts you'd see that I think pretty much along the same lines, not the first time I've had to write and say I agree with what you say !!!!!! 

 

[Wonko the Sane]

I paid for an argument!  Saying that we agree is no argument!  

                                           :cigar:

 

[ips]

I paid for an argument!  Saying that we agree is no argument!  

                                           :cigar:

Pmsl