Noob Again - Lead

[Luke_(NL)]

While there is a "popcorn and lean back" sort of enjoyment in reading the various back-and-forths, it doesn't add up to an actual exchange of knowledge on the forum and tends to end up in digs (by a single poster) at people who are well respected by the population at large. The gist of the message that is being conveyed is that most readers frown upon using a forum that has enjoyment of the sport at heart as an advertising channel for ones' own products. I've tried to say something similar before and received a dig about having sent an email as yes, I was curious about the alleged magical system. In all likelihood I'll receive another predictable reply, but I wanted to point out that the domain www.letsalltalkaboutmybooks.com is still available and seems to suit an apparent need.

 

[Westward]

Please explain

Banned for continual self promotion and endlessly arguing with anyone holding a different point of view. Sound familiar?

 

[wynno]

Banned for continual self promotion and endlessly arguing with anyone holding a different point of view. Sound familiar?

Thanks John, I thought he was a prat from the outset, now it’s been confirmed.

 

[bordergun]

FESkent. Please forgive me, the circumstances I was referring to was the fact that when it comes to solar panels on machines, we seem to have most of the options covered here in the US with the solar panels that are available here. My comment had nothing to do with teaching others to shoot.

But, since we have now touched on that subject, unfortunately many completely mis-interpret the value of the Unit Lead book. By suggesting that the CPSA method is an alternative system to the Unit Lead system, I suspect that's exactly what Freddypip did.

To become proficient with a shotgun, we need to establish lead in one of two places; either out there in feet at the target, or some measurement at the muzzle that correlates accurately into feet at the target. In both cases, we rely on seeing the barrel in our peripheral vision. Seeing lead at the muzzle has massive advantages. Please let me explain if I may?

The book breaks the variables of targets down into bite sized pieces. If the target in the area you intend to shoot it is a NARROW angle target, as remarkable as it seems, a 1 UNIT LEAD will break that target (either coming in or going out) at 20 yards, 30 yards, 40 yards and 50 yards and 60 yards. This is because of a phenomenon called parallax. Parallax is the same phenomenon that, as a road vanishes into the distance, it appears to get narrower. If the target is an INTERMEDIATE angle, a 2 UNIT LEAD will break it at ANY RANGE up to 60 yards. If it is a WIDE angle target a 3 UNIT LEAD will break it at ANY RANGE up to 60 yards. As I'm sure Freddypip will confirm, on page 36 of the Unit Lead book there is a diagram showing this and why it works.

Because of this, the advantage of seeing lead at the muzzle has massive advantages for the shooter. His repertoire of sight pictures can be established in hours, not weeks or (in some cases) years. That's why I make the claim to be able to get a shooter to logically read every target on a SC course in about 5-6 hours. Please don't bother to do the figures on this, I already have. It took me almost three years to compile all the information in the book.

Originally, many shooters and coaches missed this advantage but now, they have caught on. But of course, now it is their idea, not mine.

 

[bordergun]

Luke_NL I have a question if you would please give me the courtesy of a reply? I believe my replies to you several months ago was "an actual exchange of knowledge?" So, was my advice to you re. the leads on # 3, 4, 5 on skeet that I provided via e mail correct? Please don't be bashful, a simple Yes or No will suffice. Thank you in advance.

 

[Hermit]

I've just discovered that if you move your cursor over a contributors profile (section on the left of a post with name, joined, location etc) you are offered the option to Gift, Follow or Ignore. Do with this information as you will...but it has preserved my sanity tenfold!

You are all most welcome.

H

 

[bordergun]

Pete. Thanks for your advice on skeet, it was 100% correct and I really appreciate it. I never realized that the lead on #3 and #4 low house, because the flight line of the targets are parallel to those two stations are exactly the same. And the lead on #4 and #5 high house are also the exactly same. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

Absolutely no problem Luke, you are very welcome. Please e mail me again if you need any more free advice.

 

[Luke_(NL)]

Luke_NL I have a question if you would please give me the courtesy of a reply? I believe my replies to you several months ago was "an actual exchange of knowledge?" So, was my advice to you re. the leads on # 3, 4, 5 on skeet that I provided via e mail correct? Please don't be bashful, a simple Yes or No will suffice. Thank you in advance.

Not bashful, and I commend any efforts at exchange. I just don't like the fact that on here, it seems at best a by-product of a salespitch. On the exchange itself, my answer is no, not for me. That could well be because of me, and again, I am grateful for the attempt.

In more detail, your advice was to apply "four fingers" of lead on stations 3, 4 and 5. While lead on 3 and 5 are similar, I need to apply significantly more lead on station 4 to both the low house and the high house than I do on stations 3 and 5. For me, the statement that the lines of shot to clay are "parallel" on stations 3 and 4, and 4 and 5 does not ring true, but I'll let others weigh in. Suffice to say that my take on Olympic skeet is different.

Pete. Thanks for your advice on skeet, it was 100% correct and I really appreciate it. I never realized that the lead on #3 and #4 low house, because the flight line of the targets are parallel to those two stations are exactly the same. And the lead on #4 and #5 high house are also the exactly same. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

Absolutely no problem Luke, you are very welcome.

Not sure what you are trying to do here and why you wouldn't even wait for me to post a reply. Either its a dig at me, or you are making stuff up for others to make it sound like I am in awe. If you are that badly in need of a pat on the back, I think you should be on a wholly different forum.

Please e mail me again if you need any more free advice.

Worth every penny, but not likely to happen. Have a nice day though.

 

[bordergun]

Luke_NL Yes, you are correct, I'm afraid it is because of you. And what I say may not "ring true" for you but I can't think why? Because the evidence is there and if you take the time to look at a diagram of a skeet field, it should make it abundantly clear that what I say is absolutely, irrefutably correct. There should be no reason for "others to chime in" it is there in black and white.

As far as a pat on the back is concerned, I really don't need one but it is nice to be appreciated....as most do when I answer their questions via e mail. I answered your specific questions in good faith based on my knowledge accrued over many years as the pro. at one of the best Skeet facilities here in the US and also a three-four year contract with the Olympic skeet shooters.

And BTW on Go Daddy I believe the domain name www.Idonttakesoundadvice.com is available if you are interested?

 

[Freddypip]

“Pete. Thanks for your advice on skeet, it was 100% correct and I really appreciate it. I never realized that the lead on #3 and #4 low house, because the flight line of the targets are parallel to those two stations are exactly the same. And the lead on #4 and #5 high house are also the exactly same. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

Absolutely no problem Luke, you are very welcome. Please e mail me again if you need any more free advice.”

I would much prefer to stay quite and press that 'ignore' button, but if that from was a private email it was a private email and you should not be reprinting it here. To do so is just bad manners. And that's assuming you have a correct quote in context.

Luke - happy to weigh in. Apologies to everyone else.

The skeet layout is available for others to see on the Shootclay site at -

https://shootclay.co.uk/2012/01/24/so-what-is-skeet/

You are correct in saying that the above stations are parallel to the respective houses. I don’t think they are mathematically but I have not checked and would assume it’s as near as matters. You could make another statement as follows - If all clays are killed over the centre peg the stations need the same lead (mathematically & without shot spread) as the distance from the shooter to the clay is the same. (Edit - I think I am wrong here as there will be a marginal difference from station to station due to the center peg being set outside the semi-circle)

The flight lines mean however that the lead is not always the same and will change depending on the kill point. If you killed the low house close to the high house, Station 3 would need less lead ahead of the clay and if you killed the high house as soon as it popped out, Station 5 would need more lead ahead of the clay (in both cases ignoring clay speed). In practice the shot spread might deal with this but it’s not mathematically correct to rely on the stations being parallel when the kill point changes. Throw in the pairs and the kill points will change and your assumption is stretched that bit further.

I am not a regular skeet shooter but I would suggest it's not about the maths. It’s not the physical distance ahead of the clay that matters but the angles and how they are perceived by the shooter. My examples above are extremes involving different perceived leads than the mathematical lead - to me the oppersite. The kill point is so important in terms of what is perceived by the shooter that your above generalization, though interesting, can result in an incorrect assumption particularly if the technique used by the shooter isn't the same as you would teach.

I expect those that those who shoot skeet competitively have their process for disregarding the maths and I would suggest quite rightly. We could however have a constructive discussion on whether the above matters in any way or whether what I've said above is correct at all.

Finally, did Peter refer to 'fingers' not 'units' - perhaps best ignored as the 'finger lead system' sounds quite wrong.

 

[bordergun]

Freddypip. I'm confused. Post #127 was my "tongue in cheek" post, it wasn't Luke that was " correct in saying that" about the lead on #3 and #4 being the same because the flight line is parallel to the respective houses, it was me, so thank you for agreeing with me. Luke actually said the leads were different and still does.

Why does the "finger" system sound wrong? Fingers, units makes virtually no difference unless of course you have 2 inch wide fat fingers. Most don't. World Champion Bobby Fowler of the Elite Shooting School says inches, please look at his advice on long crossers. The point is you see lead at the muzzle. Its far easier than out there at the target. The "Unit" is a brief, visual indication of the lead requirement because your pattern will compensate. Once you know what 1 Unit looks like, it will correlate into all the other targets. Simple. 5-6 hours not 3 years.

And please don't apologize, this is a discussion forum and that's what we are having aren't we?

 

[Freddypip]

You don't need to thank me for agreeing with you if I think it's right to say it. As Luke says this is not the right place if you need a 'pat on the back'.

I expect however Luke is entirely correct for how he shoots Stations 3, 4 & 5 because of his kill points and technique.

For me this is example of where one statement needs to considered carefully. In my view for the reasons I have set out it's a fact which can, in some cases cause more trouble, than it solves. I do not believe many shooters will find their perceived lead between 3, 5 & 4 is the same and telling them mathematically there is a reason it could be doesn't help.

 

[Freddypip]

I should have added the following,

If you want to have a constructive role on this forum (or any other) it's not a case of thanking people when they agree with you but having the good manners to allow them to disagree with you.

 

[bordergun]

Freddypip Luke contacted me in October saying his average was 22-23 for Olympic skeet and that he would quote from the e mail :-"love to explore any means and theory for improving." I told him I could help with that, FREE OF CHARGE. I then e mailed him some very clear, precise and specific instructions that I had used during Covid with good results, again FREE OF CHARGE. He did not thank me for that information, but later put something on here saying that he didn't agree with the leads. I explained that I had been very successful coaching the Olympic skeet shooters by using those visual leads, but never received another e mail. I did not try to sell him any books and I'm sure he will confirm this? In other words, I like to help shooters but unfortunately, some can't be helped.

I always allow others to disagree with me. But I admit I do like to give some the benefit of over 50 years as a coach and the same as a machine installer and course designer. Some falls on stoney ground and unfortunately, things are said on Internet forums that shouldn't be. Please go back and check. I have been subjected to many insults on here by others and you will notice that has ALL been one-sided because I don't do that.

 

[Freddypip]

"Freddypip Luke contacted me in October saying his average was 22-23 for Olympic skeet and that he would quote from the e mail :-"love to explore any means and theory for improving." I told him I could help with that, FREE OF CHARGE. I then e mailed him some very clear, precise and specific instructions that I had used during Covid with good results, again FREE OF CHARGE. He did not thank me for that information, but later put something on here saying that he didn't agree with the leads. I explained that I had been very successful coaching the Olympic skeet shooters by using those visual leads, but never received another e mail. I did not try to sell him any books and I'm sure he will confirm this? In other words, I like to help shooters but unfortunately, some can't be helped.

I always allow others to disagree with me. But I admit I do like to give some the benefit of over 50 years as a coach and the same as a machine installer and course designer. Some falls on stoney ground and unfortunately, things are said on Internet forums that shouldn't be. Please go back and check. I have been subjected to many insults on here by others and you will notice that has ALL been one-sided because I don't do that."

What a pile of self-serving crap. I doubt anybody on this forum will contact you privately in future. I have no idea why you think posting about private interactions for your own kudos is acceptable. Contrary to what you say you don't allow any disagreement - you're the oldest, wisest, best book writing coach, in the world. I've kept persevering hoping that sooner or later your would show some respect to others but alas no.

 

[Freddypip]

Luke.

I need to re-re-edit my post above (#130} because I think the semicircle is drawn from the target crossing point.

Also, if its not clear, and thinking about it further, I would agree with your comments in full as the station & clay lines being parallel is only material if your kill points are moved consistent with the distances between the stations (which you are not going to do).

 

[bordergun]

But unfortunately the truth and some can't handle that so they make things up to suit their agenda. This is the Internet after all and as I said, some can't be helped. I guess you're just upset because you can't stand to admit that the UL system works?

 

[SBL]

Pete, your method may be good, bad or indifferent but these exchanges with people don’t really help your cause.

 

[Freddypip]

Not upset at all, just disappointed.

 

[bordergun]

SBL I understand completely. And my way is of course not the only way, but many have found out that it works. And surely, these discussion forums are designed primarily to help shooters? The original post here was from a NOOB who couldn't understand lead. The "he's only here to sell his books" and "his system doesn't work" blinkered attitude gets a bit tired after a while and it isn't true.

So, here you are Freddypip, just for you. A link to the way one of the most respected World Champions teaches lead:-

https://www.eliteshooting.com/press-2019interview-Bobby-Fowler.html

You will read that in his opinion and that of many others over here now, seeing lead at the muzzle is much better and easier. Seems unlikely that he would suggest that if it doesn't work? Perhaps you should read the book again?