The folks who recently talked me into buying a Citori skeet gun with 30" barrels said the longer barrels (compared to my present gun with 26" barrels) will give you better pointability and reduce perceived lead.

I'm not sure what better pointability actually means. If it means that pointing becomes easier because your swing is smoother then I will be happy. My current pointing problem as a new shooter is matching gun speed to target speed (I'm usually too fast and inconsistent) on outgoing shots.

If longer barrels do reduce perceived lead that is very good in my opinion since I find it easier to hit targets when the lead is small rather than large. I have always used the swing through method and small leads on game birds at any angle or distance and rarely missed but switching to sustained lead for skeet is giving me trouble on the outgoing targets. The incomers are easy because I can lead them less for some reason.

 

I do not know on that,,

I grew up with 30" or longer for trap, and 26" and shorter for skeet, I have seen guys shoot skeet with open choke tubes in 32" barrels, they said it felt awkward swing the long barrels fast.

the 26" works for me,,,,,,,

 

Bill,

Longer barrels actually increase the perceived lead and I don't think that is a bad thing at all.

Once you get used to the sight pictures for the various shots, your problems with sustained lead will diminish. It's not easy switching from the swing through lead method to the sustained lead method.

Hang in there and keep practicing!

Scott

 

I think that longer barrels make the lead seam less, I have no idea why. I use 32" barrels with lead weights in the forearm and I can still occasionaly stop the gun.

 

Longer barrels actually increase the perceived lead....

I really don't see how it can be otherwise, yet everytime this subject comes up, people insist that the perceived lead diminishes!??? Simple trigonometry will easily prove this out.

I really do not think it is that much of an issue, because in order for this to be true, you need to have the bead and the target in hard focus and that just isn't physically possible. I think the best shots will be able to switch between different barrel lengths with very little trouble, with respect to lead and sight picture. Feel and dynamics are a different story altogether.

Frank

 

Longer barrels actually increase the perceived lead....

I really don't see how it can be otherwise, yet everytime this subject comes up, people insist that the perceived lead diminishes!??? Simple trigonometry will easily prove this out.

Just for the record I am not saying that longer barrels actually do reduce perceived lead, I am just repeating what the fellow who sold me the 30" gun said. I did not get the gun yet so I have no idea what I will see when I actually get the chance to compare the 30" barrels to the 26" barrels. The gun salesman is definitely an outstanding shooter - I have seen him in action - so I assumed that he had personal experience to back his statement up. Since perceived lead is different for different people, maybe some folks perceive less lead with longer barrels even if the opposite is true??

This whole business of long vs short barrels is sort of confusing to me as a new target shooter because, other than brief try-outs with borrowed guns which are not really enough exposure to make a firm decision, there is no way to find out what is best for you except to buy a gun with longer (or shorter) barrels and shoot both for a period of months.

But buying new guns is fun so I am not complaining

 

William,

Sorry for any confusion (probably a bad habit of mine ) I did not take your post as meaning you actually saw a decrease in perceived lead, though you might. As you pointed out, it is a personal thing that no one other than the individual in question can dispute. I just don't see how anyone can see less lead when simple mathematics will actually indicate the opposit. It would have to be chalked up to an optical illusion. Congratulations on your new Citori, I wish you manny straights with it, with a "shorter" lead that only you can truely see! :wink: :lol:

Frank

 

Sighting plane length (the distance from the eye to the bead) does indeed affect perceived lead and offer better pointability. Let's look at the math.

A = Lead at the target in inches
B = Distance to target in inches
C = Lead at bead in inches
D = Length of sighting plane in inches

A/B = C/D

C = (A/B) * D

A = (C/D) * B

If we know any three of the variables, we can calculate the fourth.

Let's say we are shooting High 4 and we know the lead required is 42", the distance is 756" (21 yards), and the sighting plane length for our 28" barrel gun is 36". We can calculate the lead at the bead as follows:

C = (42/756) * 36

So lead at the bead equals 2".

Let's change the barrel length of our shotgun from 28" to 32" which increases the sighting plane length to 40".

What does that do to our lead at the bead?

C = (42/756) * 40

The lead at the bead is now 2.23". No big deal right? We don't need to change our site picture, right? Well, maybe it is a big deal and maybe we do need to change our sight picture. Let's look at what happens to the lead at the target if we don't change our sight picture and keep that 2" lead at the bead:

A = (2/40) * 756

The actual lead we are using is now 37.8" instead of the ideal 42". That 4.2" doesn't sound like much, but it does matter.

Barrel length does affect how we see leads. Changing barrel lengths means we need to learn slightly different sight pictures.

Something else it tells us is that the longer sight plane gives us more resolution in our sight picture. This gives us the potential to point the gun more accurately. In other words, longer barrels do indeed offer better pointability.

Scott

 

Something else it tells us is that the longer sight plane gives us more granularity in our sight picture. This gives us the potential to point the gun more accurately. In other words, longer barrels do indeed offer better pointability.

Longer sight plane increases the precision of the site picture and decreases the potential of error at the target. The challenge seems to be to do this semi-instictively and avoid hesitation.

I went from 26" to 28" and now 30" barrels--swing is smoother, no hesitation and consistantly break targets previously missed. Interestingly, going back to a 26 is not difficult as working with the 30" barrel has refined my site picture.

 

[The] Longer sight plane...decreases the potential of error at the target.

Fish Springs,

I considered mentioning that in my "math" post but thought I would save that for later in the discussion. I actually didn't see that side of it until I did the math. When I realized the resolution was increased, it struck me that errors in pointing should be decreased as well. Or, at least the errors would be smaller.

Bender said in an article that he, Wayne Mayes, and Luke Deshotels all noticed seeing the leads better with longer barrels. Seeing leads better should lead to better accuracy and fewer mistakes. That's the better "pointability" that Bender talks about in the article. Here is the URL to the article for those interested in reading it [borrowed from Case]:

http://www.10xshooters.com/skeet/Long_B ... _Skeet.pdf

Scott

 

William,
Congratulations on your new Citori, I wish you manny straights with it, with a "shorter" lead that only you can truely see! :wink: :lol:

Frank

Thanks, but hopefully I won't be "seeing things" when I get the new gun

You are right, of course, about perceived lead increasing with longer barrels as proven by Scott's math. Now I'm wondering if I should get 756" barrels which will provide maximum pointing precision along with a very smooth swing

 

Bill,

I don't think you could legally shoot High 8 or Low 8 with 756" barrels. But you could bat them out of the sky!

:wink:

Scott

 

Scott,

Good article. That is what I've been seeing. I have also had the too much weight experience.

Thanks

FS

 

I don't see leads shooting Skeet. One doesn't need to see leads in a close game like Skeet. If you look hard at only the target, the brain automatically calculates the correct lead. This isn't true for some of the long range Sporting Clays targets. Seeing the correct lead for these targets is important. I don't waste visual energy seeing Skeet leads - not necessary. I just look at the target and pull the trigger. When the shoot offs roll around, I'm as fresh as a daisy. Picked this information up in an article by Gil and Vickie Ash.

 

One doesn't need to see leads in a close game like Skeet.

Not if you're a swing-through shooter, whch with that outlook you either are or you're missing a lot of targets.

Sustained-lead shooters must see and have the right lead, then follow-through, or they won't break many birds.

 

One doesn't need to see leads in a close game like Skeet. If you look hard at only the target, the brain automatically calculates the correct lead.

shootwell,

If the brain calculates the correct lead, you ARE seeing the lead. In fact, no matter what lead method you use, you have to see the lead to know when it is time to pull the trigger.

You may see the lead subconsciously or you may see it consciously, but you do see the lead.

Scott

 

As Bender says:"Head on the gun. Eyes on the target. Lead is a distant third." When you put too much visual energy into lead, it tends to cause one to slow the gun down or worse yet stop it. I look at the target, only the target, and the puff of smoke after I pull the trigger.

As Red Hill told me when I took my first Skeet lesson: "This is a pretty simple game. Why make it hard? Just pull the god damned trigger." (Actually, I cleaned Red's quote up a bit.)

 

When you put too much visual energy into lead, it tends to cause one to slow the gun down or worse yet stop it.

Agreed. And that's exactly the reason the sustained lead never worked for me in 35 years of shooting Skeet and the reason, now that I've at least bought into some of Bender's preaching, that I'm having trouble making it work now.

And you're right -- and I've pointed it out a number of times myself -- that Bender definitely deemphasizes lead in his video. But he also deemphasizes follow-through, which I consider a vital element of the shooting sequence.

Slowing gun speed and actually stopping the gun are the two foremost evils of the sustained lead.

But the swing-through lead has its own built-in evil in lack of precision in leading the target.

Nevertheless, the swing-through still works better for me than the sustained.

Hard to teach old dogs new tricks.

 

Gotta disagree here Scott....

I will admint, you lost me with your math, I tend to look at it from a logical point of view.

The lead, both actual and perceived, gets smaller with longer bbls. Take a gross exageration, imagine a bbl. 21 yards long (yes, I know that's ridiculous but it works for this example)...what would the lead be?....it would be 0 at the center stake, put the end of the bbl. on the target. At half that distance the lead is half (approximately) since the shot only travels half the distance once it leaves the bbl. (before leaving the bbl. it is being moved horizontally along with the bbl.)....

That said, I doubt anyone sees much difference in bbls. w/ only 2" of difference in length, maybe not even 4".

P_102

 

Gotta disagree here Scott....

I will admint, you lost me with your math, I tend to look at it from a logical point of view.

The lead, both actual and perceived, gets smaller with longer bbls. Take a gross exageration, imagine a bbl. 21 yards long (yes, I know that's ridiculous but it works for this example)...what would the lead be?....it would be 0 at the center stake, put the end of the bbl. on the target. At half that distance the lead is half (approximately) since the shot only travels half the distance once it leaves the bbl. (before leaving the bbl. it is being moved horizontally along with the bbl.)....

That said, I doubt anyone sees much difference in bbls. w/ only 2" of difference in length, maybe not even 4".

P_102

I think I'm beginning to see why some people think the lead is less with longer barrels!!????

Nice theory, but contrary to what actually happens. In your example, yes, the lead would be zero with a 21 yard barrel, BUT, the barrel must be kept moving at the speed of the bird because the force of the swing is applied for the entire "flight" of the shot charge. In reality, application of lateral force (force of the swing) ends when the shot charge leaves the muzzle. From there on, the shot charge travels in a straight line, whereas the shot in the 21yard barrel will follow a curved path when plotted from the cartridge to the target. Still, if we want to pick the fly crap out of pepper, then yes, using you peramiters, a longer barrel will requireless lead, but it is meaningless!

If you believe you are seeing a smaller amount of forward allowance and you are smashing your targets, then you are! It's that simple.

Frank

 

Frank, thank you for putting my thoughts in a more understandable statement. And, as I said....

"That said, I doubt anyone sees much difference in bbls. w/ only 2" of difference in length, maybe not even 4"."

....I also feel the difference is negligable. Whether a ahooter can actually see any difference doesn't change the fact that the lead is shorter w/ longer bbls....

Yes, I am picky with this kind of stuff.

P_102

 

That any shooter, let alone the average shooter, could possibly adjust a lead by mere inches is as unlikely as P_102's theoretical 21-yard barrel. :roll:

The value of Winders' math, if anyone can actually understand it, serves only to illustrate the difference between the physical lead required to hit a moving target at a given distance/speed and how that lead actually appears to the shooter at the angle from any given station.

The physical lead at 21 yards is always about 40 inches and the nearer the shooter is to Station 4, the more it looks like 40 inches.

On a practical basis, calculations and angst over the length of a barrel and how it relates to lead are pretty much moot, meaningless and useless.

 

Dang Case! I said it was an exagerated example! LOL! And, yes, I understand that opinions vary greatly on lead, it's definition, what effects it and how almost nobody (me included) can tell a couple inches at 21 yrds. ....the way I look at it, lead begins (how you see it, what effects it, whatever) once the shot leaves the bbl, until then it's moving w/ the bbl, like Frank said.

As far as perceived vs. actual....

"The physical lead at 21 yards is always about 40 inches and the nearer the shooter is to Station 4, the more it looks like 40 inches."

The two (perceived vs. actual) are closest at low 3 and high 5 where the angle is closest to 90 degrees in the center of the field.

Yes, I'm picky, I know you said "nearer".

P_102

 

What if you took a freeze frame of a shooter in the process of breaking a target, at say station 4, holding his 32" barreled gun sight bead at a lead distance of 2.23 inches as Scott cited in his math example.

With everything still in place, except moving the sight bead back to a postion that would represent its mounting on a 28" barreled gun, wouldn't the actual lead shorten up a bit as the bead has now moved closer towards the target?

In real pratice the distance involved would be negligible, sure.

 

The two (perceived vs. actual) are closest at low 3 and high 5 where the angle is closest to 90 degrees in the center of the field.

Correct. Station 4 is removed from 90 degrees a bit, owing to the target's 17-degree flight path off the range's base cord.

I wasn't being picky enough.