Seeing Lead - your thoughts

[EdSolomons]

If eyes are fixed on target,how do you see the lead.

You are aware of your barrels in peripheral vision. Not all targets (low driven as an example) need lead and can be taken care of with gun speed.

Re your question tony if you have a degree of pull from your left eye it will essentially pulling the barrels left, so right to lefts get given "extra" and the reverse for left to rights. 

 

[Bebo]

I only got 2/6 on the first on report pair and I didn't see anything just swung and managed to connect - that was up the first part of the course.  The highest tower I managed two pairs and did see because I turned the barrrels slightly.  The last one which was called the 40 in the big bowl area I swung from the trap slight turned my barrels  (not as a crosser) and didn't see any lead and got them all  - timing was good.

I have the same issue as you with driven - trying to see the lead and then slowing the gun / being hesitant.  I did OK on the driven targets on Stands 3 and 13 (missed one on Stand 3).  Stuffed the tower pair, was my only really bad stand of the day and got a 2.  Missed the first pair and then took one each of the remaining pairs.  My own fault, went into the stand feeling like I was going to miss them and as a result was hesitant and didn't pull through the targets.  Only way I can hit driven targets consistently is swing through and I just don't get enough practice on high towers.

 

[DavidJ]

If eyes are fixed on target,how do you see the lead.

As Ed says, I see the bead in my peripheral vison and I see it very clear. I'd also say that if your not aware of the bead your not as aware of the line your moving your gun on.

Practicing yesterday, if i mount the gun and look through the bead at the target my right eye is dominant, if I glance back at the bead causing my eyes to refocus the my left eye takes over and I get a clear view of the left side of the barrels.

 

[Holianl]

I have no comprehension of lead, never have.

this whole conversation has been a Blair to me.

 

[Salopian]

I have no comprehension of lead, never have.

this whole conversation has been a Blair to me.

What do you mean ? A Blair?

Oh I get it a complete load of lies , evasion in answering the questions and ending up being outrageously expensive.

 

[ips]

holianl

what you have to realise is that everyone perceives "the shot" differently" some see the lead as two foot some will swear blind its six foot some like me are never aware of any lead even though physics dictate there has to be. A lot depends on gun speed and many other variables. This is why there are so many "debates" on the subject of lead and of point of impact. Even though I enjoy these debates from a personal perspective over analysis of such matters leads to a very dark place.

 

[Salopian]

Paralysis by analysis

 

[ips]

Paralysis by analysis

yes that. ?

 

[Will Hewland]

I'm very tolerant of others views. Some see lead as I do, others see it wrongly, which is fine. ?

 

[ips]

I'm very tolerant of others views. Some see lead as I do, others see it wrongly, which is fine. ?

I rest my case mi lud ?

 

[ips]

found this re-Churchill method.......

He also created a debate in his advocating that there was no requirement to see lead or forward allowance, that a well drilled gunmount with the muzzles pointing at the beak of the bird through to completion of the mount, the pulling of the trigger without check or hesitation, the lag in the brain between eyes and hand meant that the barrel had travelled several feet in front of the bird and gave the required forward allowance

 

[ips]

another quote this time from mike Yardley....

Churchill suggested – and it caused much misunderstanding and controversy – that one might apply lead subconsciously if one kept one’s eyes on the bird and trained one self in certain footwork and mounting drills. It was as if one was shooting at the target. His technique is arguably more instinctive and buys time.

Should one see lead consciously or subconsciously? Robert Churchill, Major Ruffer and John Bidwell would say subconsciously. Stanbury’s approach was more deliberate. After much experiment and observation, my advice for most people would be to use the subconscious method in most circumstances within normal ranges. If you sustain vision on the bird’s head or beak, you will certainly unlock phenomenal powers of subconscious hand-to-eye coordination.

 

[Westward]

He also created a debate in his advocating that there was no requirement to see lead or forward allowance, that a well drilled gunmount with the muzzles pointing at the beak of the bird through to completion of the mount, the pulling of the trigger without check or hesitation, the lag in the brain between eyes and hand meant that the barrel had travelled several feet in front of the bird and gave the required forward allowance

So.... if you apply the above technique but miss the clay because the lead was wrong, you obviously have no clue as to how much lead you applied, so how do you adjust to get the right lead next time?

 

[ips]

So.... if you apply the above technique but miss the clay because the lead was wrong, you obviously have no clue as to how much lead you applied, so how do you adjust to get the right lead next time?

gun speed ?

trap shooters often say "I went straight through it" or "I was miles in front" or "I just threw the gun at it" . What they really mean (and are aware of it) is that the gun speed was to fast. Conversely on a target missed behind, well that's purely laziness and or none commitment to the shot.

to my mind Mr churchills method is trap shooting but (on driven) in reverse. ?

 

[Dbac300566]

For mostly game shooting,I look at the bird,mount the gun(not to soon or it will compromise the shot)when the gun is mounted the shot is taken immediately,there is NO hesitation.For clays I use same technique,for me it's about looking at the target reading it's line and moving body and feet in relation to the target.All this about lead,spoils the natural rhythm of shooting.Shooting is about rhythm not a mathematical equation.

 

[ips]

For mostly game shooting,I look at the bird,mount the gun(not to soon or it will compromise the shot)when the gun is mounted the shot is taken immediately,there is NO hesitation.For clays I use same technique,for me it's about looking at the target reading it's line and moving body and feet in relation to the target.All this about lead,spoils the natural rhythm of shooting.Shooting is about rhythm not a mathematical equation.

nicely written. ?

same here, ?

 

[Hamster]

found this re-Churchill method.......

He also created a debate in his advocating that there was no requirement to see lead or forward allowance, that a well drilled gunmount with the muzzles pointing at the beak of the bird through to completion of the mount, the pulling of the trigger without check or hesitation, the lag in the brain between eyes and hand meant that the barrel had travelled several feet in front of the bird and gave the required forward allowance

Churchill was famous for and an advocate of 25" side by sides with little choke, one can imagine the above method as being adequately useful on 20 yard game but it's never going to work on todays clays or the better presented live birds.

 

[ips]

no idea if your right or not Hamid, I posted the quotes purely to "back up" my statement of never seeing lead.

my ou game gun 28"

my sxs 26"

?

but I shoot the same way with a 30" trap gun

 

[Westward]

gun speed ?

Good luck with that... :bye:

 

[Will Hewland]

Good luck with that... :bye:

Precisely. Gunspeed along works for very little lead targets. (Even then it's a crap method). Try gun speed alone on a 60 yard fast battue..