Reading breaks

[Iggy]

I've decided to experiment and tighten up on my chokes for a while which got me wondering if there were any peculiarities to look out for in reading target breaks?

It may just be very straightforward....cut the back off give it a bit more, cut the front off a bit less etc.....but like everything else in this game I'm assuming there's more to it.

Thanks all. 

 

[Hamster]

Hugely interesting topic and in my view rather misunderstood, it isn't quite as simple as giving it more or less per (next) shot, for example getting very weak (unreadable breaks) are an obvious pointer to drastic change being needed rather than a change in lead as such. 

I will also say that consciously altering the lead mid flow can often lead to unnecessary misses.

 

[Will Hewland]

If you find there's more, let me know. But all joking aside, it's important to go for the centre of a clay every time, especially on the easy stands. Makes you concentrate and avoid silly misses.

 

[jwpzx9r]

If you find there's more, let me know. But all joking aside, it's important to go for the centre of a clay every time, especially on the easy stands. Makes you concentrate and avoid silly misses.

I am not in here to start an argument so lets keep it civil  

I shoot trap and I must say I find it interesting that I hear comments such as  " go for the centre of the target" or " altering lead mid flow" I was shooting UT last weekend and first round shot 23 not bad for me. The thing is I shot 22 on the first barrel... but not all of the breaks were the same most were very good, just hammered the target but there were quite a few that were just broken into two or three pieces and I think one that was just chipped. However at no time after such a break did I think about changing what I was trying to do which was put my shot where I thought the target was going to be. I think it must be down to the fact that sporting shooters know what is coming next which probably allows them to think that way... or is that why I am not such a great trap shooter because I do not think that way. I think about it this way the target is 110mm in diameter travelling at near enough 25m per second and I shoot it at about 35 -40 m what are the chances of me being able to actually move my shot load anywhere near the accuracy require to make the difference of taking the front half off the target as opposed to the back half ? In short I don't care where I hit it just so long as it breaks  

I am not in here to start an argument but I think you have to be some sort of shooter to be able to move the point of impact 4 inches!

 

[FreeShot]

I'd just comment on sporting targets - as Will said there are some (usually close ones or ones that show full face ect) that should be pulverised when hit, since every weak break on those is leting you know you have an error somewhere, that would result on complete miss if that same target would be further out...

 

[Hamster]

I am not in here to start an argument so lets keep it civil  

I shoot trap and I must say I find it interesting that I hear comments such as  " go for the centre of the target" or " altering lead mid flow" I was shooting UT last weekend and first round shot 23 not bad for me. The thing is I shot 22 on the first barrel... but not all of the breaks were the same most were very good, just hammered the target but there were quite a few that were just broken into two or three pieces and I think one that was just chipped. However at no time after such a break did I think about changing what I was trying to do which was put my shot where I thought the target was going to be. I think it must be down to the fact that sporting shooters know what is coming next which probably allows them to think that way... or is that why I am not such a great trap shooter because I do not think that way. I think about it this way the target is 110mm in diameter travelling at near enough 25m per second and I shoot it at about 35 -40 m what are the chances of me being able to actually move my shot load anywhere near the accuracy require to make the difference of taking the front half off the target as opposed to the back half ? In short I don't care where I hit it just so long as it breaks  

I am not in here to start an argument but I think you have to be some sort of shooter to be able to move the point of impact 4 inches!

(Altering lead mid flow) was my way of conversing with ESP shooters who will all be familiar with missing targets altogether because they overcorrected a perceived problem. You see the front edge break and give it an extra bit of daylight and miss, that's why I maintain reading breaks isn't quite as black and white as it sounds. If you're breaking them then the best thing to do would be to concentrate on executing the next shot, i.e, don't change lead for the hell of it and when you do be very subtle. 

It's most certainly not infallible and I wouldn't say it's about imparting 4 inches less/more lead either. The centre of the pattern breaks the target best, a perfect star burst of thousands of fragments (on say a 35 yard half tilted standard) indicates damn near perfect shot placement, pole axe the same target and it could mean a number of things, your half choke can throw slightly over/under its designation from shot to shot, it's also possible to be lucky and place 6 tightly packed pellets from either the centre or (just outside) on a given target - therefore a smoke mustn't immediately be either judged or acted upon, but 4 smokes in a row simply means you're overchoked.....and on target. 

If you're breaking the target well then the chances are you're doing so with the centre of the pattern, if you're not breaking them well then the chances are you're doing so with the fringes. It can also be a personal phenomenon dependent on your technique or idiosyncrasies. For example I have come to realise that breaking the back end or getting poor breaks on slow R to L crossers doesn't mean I'm behind but almost the opposite, the actual problem lay in my taking the shot for granted, not finishing correctly, lifting my head as I pulled too far ahead which cause the swing to stop and the shot to go a little too high as well, my sight picture said too much lead yet the breaks were saying not enough. The answer was to give less lead but stay in the gun and finish the shot. 

 

[Will Hewland]

Yes, I wasn't talking about shooting some edge on thing up the butt. I meant real shooting like 50 yard battues. 

 

[paul b]

A couple of weeks  ago i straighted a quite difficult pool shoot with a lot of edge on stuff,having ran out of shells i just got a few boxes from the ground and off i went,after a couple of goes i was CHIPPING my through to a staight and after started thinking how bad the kills we're, so looked at the shells only to find they were 21grm.

Morrell to the story is,if i worried about the kills mid round,i can guarantee there wouldnt of been a straight off me.

 

[westley]

How many nights are these Reading breaks for then  ???

 

[Iggy]

Funnily enough I can actually furnish you with this information as its all I got when I tried to google it ?

 

[westley]

Funnily enough I can actually furnish you with this information as its all I got when I tried to google it ?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[jwpzx9r]

I am sure Charlie posted a link to a site that had ultra high speed video of clays being broken and the consensus after close study of the breaks it was virtually impossible to tell whether the shot was in front or behind the target. The was sequence of breaks went from being behind to being in front and vice versa .

Yes, I wasn't talking about shooting some edge on thing up the butt. I meant real shooting like 50 yard battues. 

Well yes of course how silly of me    

 

[Hamster]

I am sure Charlie posted a link to a site that had ultra high speed video of clays being broken and the consensus after close study of the breaks it was virtually impossible to tell whether the shot was in front or behind the target. The was sequence of breaks went from being behind to being in front and vice versa .

To my knowledge the only footage so far shot at and observed in order to understand break reading is on trap type targets which are possibly the least suitable for this purpose. I recall conversing with people on a US forum and their take was that since shooting appropriately varied footage of ESP type targets is prohibitively expensive, then their conclusions based on trap targets were valid ! About as pathetically stupid and unscientific as it gets in other words. 

Besides, even on this type of target footage could fairly reliably be seen to favour reading breaks as a valid skill.

There IS a relationship between shot cloud colliding with a moving target and the manner in which they break, it's not simple and it's not necessarily as straightforward as looking for where the break first appears, it's a much more complex issue and it involves experience and being able to factor in other less obvious things. 

 

[jwpzx9r]

I had one or two breaks on Saturday that I would have defied anybody to read whether the shot was in front or behind... I personally as have said before could not give a monkey's the target broke next please... of course the difference for me is the next target is different could be going right, left or straight ahead.

 

[chippy]

Am I the only one who thinks this. Put tight chokes in so you can read where your hitting them, is coach speak for " see you next week" 

 

[Hamster]

I had one or two breaks on Saturday that I would have defied anybody to read whether the shot was in front or behind... I personally as have said before could not give a monkey's the target broke next please... of course the difference for me is the next target is different could be going right, left or straight ahead.

It's not an exact science and the art lies in not trying or thinking you can read each and every break. If you read top shooters reasons for shooting tight chokes it's invariably because they think they can see what's happening downrange, if there was no correlation i.e, it was only ever random, then so many people couldn't all be fooled for so long. 

I think therefore I am. 

 

[EdSolomons]

I see about 5000 a week and I can pretty well read most breaks accurately despite what others think is possible or otherwise.

There are some peculiarities but for the number of times hey happen (and you really have to be behind the gun to get a full understanding in these cases) I would t worry too much about it.

some shots can be easily adjusted to centre by changing sight picture, others need more of a tweak to gun speed or tempo to make the change (generally shallower angle and trap type birds)

 

[Hamster]

I see about 5000 a week and I can pretty well read most breaks accurately despite what others think is possible or otherwise.

There are some peculiarities but for the number of times hey happen (and you really have to be behind the gun to get a full understanding in these cases) I would t worry too much about it.

some shots can be easily adjusted to centre by changing sight picture, others need more of a tweak to gun speed or tempo to make the change (generally shallower angle and trap type birds)

That's what I've been trying to say, people seem to see it in simplistic terms of giving more or less lead but tiny changes made to set up or pick up point can be even more important. 

 

[ips]

I just shoot the begger and if a bit comes off I have hit it ?

seriously though yes you can read a break and as Ed alludes to its easier to read someone else's when your stood behind than it is too read your own. Knowing what to tweek to correct it is a skill and that's were folk like Ed come in.