[RickN]

You guys are top-notch mythbusters when you "show your work" like this.

Very well done.

 

[Hap MecTweaks]

Changing a trap shooters mind is almost an impossibility, but,,,,

You two did a great job on testing and proving the points with well thought out points and pictures of proof.

I've always said, for years, most of the better shots use the last look they had at the correlation between a target/bead/barrel look to surmise they read the breaks correctly.

Thanks to you both for a fine job of myth ""busting"" and sharing it with all of us.

Hap

 

[Gapper]

Un-freaking-believable.

You still can't figure it out.

Another hint, courtesy Chris Cornell: "What you wanted to see good, has made you blind."

 

[Neil Winston]

I take it, Gapper, you have an alternative explanation you would like to share with us. What is it and what's your evidence?

I'll even start your response; we know how hard it is to get that first line on paper.

"Targets break the way they do because . . ." Well, you'll have to take it from there, won't you?

As with all our posts, we welcome qualified proponents of our or others' views to post their thoughts, and only ask they not post with the sole intention of wasting our or our readers's time.

Neil

 

[Gapper]

There is certainly an alternate explanation, and it surprises that it hasn't been printed on TS.com by some astute fellow. It's enjoyable reading these posts to see how far some have progressed in elementary physics. A good laugh at a blow hard is never a waste time, and can be therapeutic; chicken soup for the soul during the drab season.

As for sharing with others, how can this be done? It's already cut and dried - "The Real Reason Targets Break the Way They Do". No room left for any doubt on that one. What a super ego.

A weak effort to illicit a response "Targets break the way they do because..." simply proves a total lack of understanding, confirms underlying self-doubt, and shows an inability, most likely physiological, to grasp the most basic concepts of target shooting, and is actually no crime and completely forgiveable. Sad too.

Always recommended doing the homework if accolades be the true goal; better man for it.

Does ANYONE really think top shooters like Kay Ohye, at 60 years+ old win because of better eye-hand coordination or reflexes? They have mastered the technique of reading breaks and of using that information to their advantage. The great masses of people can't grab it, just don't have it, but some think if it can be put into a mathamatical formula (it can) then they too would know the secret. But if one can't see it, forget it, plain and simple.


How some never-was can can espouse to know something more than others, then insult and denigrate them at every opportunity is almost beyond comprehension.

Please include lots of insults to intellegence and condescention toward others in the new book, surely it'll be a best seller. GAP

 

[Neil Winston]

What, exactly, is your alternative explanation? You must realize that

"There is certainly an alternate explanation, and it surprises that it hasn't been printed on TS.com by some astute fellow"

does not qualify. What we need to know is not that it exists, but rather what it is, specifically. And the evidence for it, of course.

We'll try again to give you some help. Really, you can just copy this and maybe it will help you get started:

"Targets break the way they do because . . ." Well, again, you'll have to take it from there, won't you?

Neil

PS We hope everyone who still thinks they can read target breaks will tell us why. There have to be some responsible opponents to our explanation who can make their serious case. We hope they will.

 

[Dr A C Jones]

Neil, You can quite easily do the "spinning only" test. Recall the spin vs distance test . . . . since the targets don't lose their spin, you could set up an incomer/teal type target and shoot it when it is near stationary (linear component) and thus show the spin effect alone. You could even mark the targets as per the spin test.

Also, for the hanging targets that didn't break, did you photograph them post pellet strike?

Andrew.

 

[chuckie68]

OK Gapper---

It is time to put up or shut up.

"Targets break the way they do because"?

I would love to hear your desenting opinion! That is if you can produce one.

Seems that you and your buddy, Chris Cornell know more than that dummie Newton.

Lets hear it! Again; It's time to put up or shut up!!

Chuck

 

[Dr.Longshot]

The only way I can read the target breaks is from behind the shooter and not from across the trapfield, and to me that is the only way to read a target break.

But that is me and the only way I would read target breaks, and I can see the angle of the actual target, to me the rest is a guessing game, and I don't do guessing games.

Gary Bryant
Dr.longshot

 

[shot410ga]

If you want to really see how targets break, put a ShotKam on you gun and use it on a bright day in a clear sky. You will see the shot, wad, and target as it breaks in detail.

 

[Dr A C Jones]

shot410ga, I have come to the conclusion that ShotKam and DryFire are the only ways to learn methodically. The problem is, they both also have drawbacks.

ShotKam knackers the balance of the gun and must be reviewed laboriously after each shot or maybe three shots so you can still recall what the sight picture looked like.

DryFire gives instant feedback and includes cases where the target would have passed through the pattern despite the aim being good, but a laser dot won't help build-up mental pictures.

It's a tough call about the best way to learn. All that can be said is, a lot of old advice was wrong, and is there a better way to proceed now.

Andrew.

 

[code5coupe]

Facinating. Does your revealing work then indicate that the long-held theory that only very tight chokes are suitable for trap work because only they enable "accurate" "target reading" is just another myth?

 

[Hap MecTweaks]

How a clay target breaks, if hit with minimal pellets, depends where on the rotating clay that pellet strikes. Over, under, in front or behind matters not too much. A pattern can be in front of the clay and an outliers MAY strike the clay somewhere in that 360 degree circle of said clay. If it strikes toward the top left, the piece will more than likely will veer toward the right side, struck toward bottom right, the piece MAY veer to the left and all of this is due to the clays rotation when struck along with the direction of spin. Counter clock wise or clock wise. Most trap machines throw a clays rotation clock wise.

The better shooters claiming to read target breaks do so with their last look at the time the gun goes off. (In my opinion) In front, over, behind or under gives them their first clue they made an errant move/point. The stray pellet strike MAY be anywhere on that 360 degree circle of the clay target, rotation and where it strikes alone determines the piece directions.

code5coupe, I try for the best possible 25 inch center patterns at the yardages I break targets. To get there, most work is best with a good full choke. The outside fringes of that 25 inches will smoke targets from 16 to 27. This certainly isn't saying other constrictions won't work either! A nephew has a mod. choke for his K gun that smokes targets from far behind the max line!! Better than most full chokes!

Thats my take on patterns and reading them getting the most bang for my buck when shooting trap targets.

Hap

 

[Neil Winston]

Hap, have you gone through the linked article on the Northstarclaytarget.com website, the one that was introduced by Ron's first post in this thread? By "gone through" I mean read every word, and watched every video. If you haven't, I think you should do so now because it's a long, complicated argument that needs time and a little effort, even, to understand.

The idea you cited "If it strikes toward the top left, the piece will more than likely will veer toward the right side, struck toward bottom right, the piece MAY veer to the left" is a combination of the explanations for Strong TBR we discussed, "The Cue Ball Analogy" and "The Differential Probability" explanation.

They are both completely wrong. There is no useful degree that the "place hit" on the target correlates with pieces left to right. Big pieces just go more to the right, but that's due to the fact that the back of the target is often protected from the pellets by the front. In the TBR Cyber Challenge a month ago one player, Rastoff, used the place where the target was first hit to guide his answers and he fared no better than average.

You really should download Quicktime 7 and go carefully though the videos of angles and straight-away target breaks. If you do, i"m sure you will agree with us.

We agree that good shooters read where their gun was when it went off.

Neil

Code5, I'm working on our answer.

 

[Hap MecTweaks]

Neil, most of the TBRs I know read the direction of the small piece rather than the largest remaining chunks. I work with new to slightly advanced shooters from time to time. When doing so, I pick a trap field where I can see the shot strings with my naked eye, most times. I ask shooters where did that shot go or where do you think it went? New shooters have no inkling, the more experiences one has the more accurate they are in saying where the shot went, behind, in front etc. I do wholeheartedly agree with what you and Ron are saying, no one can read what breaks a small chunk off a target! That small piece may come off any place and fly who knows where!

I will re-read and look at that again though.

Hap

 

[Neil Winston]

Hap, yes I know that some do:

"most of the TBRs I know read the direction of the small piece rather than the largest remaining chunks."

The thing is that all of them, every last one, whether they read big pieces or small, is misleading himself. That's what the article demonstrates; you just can't do it _and get it right_ (except by chance).

Remember, when we did the Cyber-Challenge, the average player got twice as many wrong as right. And that's when we made it easy, closeup, and slowed by 20x. And we scored 9 of the 20 targets "right" with either of two answers! So what's the on-the-field error rate? We estimate 80% wrong since when you are just making up the answers, (and they all were, though they didn't know it), there are four times as many opportunities to be wrong as right.

Go through it again, and retake the Challenge if you want. I think that, after you study it all, you will come to agree.

I think I can see the shot when is bird is missed when I'm looking over the shooters' shoulder. But, the way this has been going, we plan to test that too. It'll be easy. I think both Ron and I will "pass" but that's why you do experiments, isn't it?

Neil

 

[Hap MecTweaks]

I remember well your Cyber-Challenge! I wrote that I wouldn't partake because I knew there couldn't be any way for anyone to score 100%!

Watching the shot cloud fly by a target can tell only one thing, if you can see it, is where the cloud passed it by, only! The rest is guess work at best.

Hap

 

[Neil Winston]

Thank you for your question, code5oupe; it has already led to a modification of our plans for the next experiment (in spring), one which will make it much more interesting.


You wondered what implications our research has for the the wide-spread assertion


“only very tight chokes are suitable for trap work because only they enable "accurate" "target reading"”


Well, I’m going to assume that when you wrote “Target reading” you were thinking of “target break reading.” When we use that term, we have to distinguish between the two types, the ones we defined in that article:


“Strong Target-break-reading (Strong TBR): Guessing at the location of the shot-cloud based on a clay-target’s breaking pattern. Example: “Look at the way the shot drove those pieces down! You are still shooting over them!”


“Weak Target-break-reading (Weak TBR): Using the “quality” of the target’s break to determine if the bird was centered in the pattern or off to some side without reference to which side. Example: “You just barely clipped that one; give yourself a little more time to make the shot.”


We can discount any advantage either choke would have for Strong TBR. It doesn’t work at all, so neither will perform worse, nor better.


Weak TBR is a different process, but rather than just guess, let’s see if we have any data which might lead us to one or the other answer. It won’t be certain, of course, only experiment can give us data to base our answer on. But we can use what we think now to access the odds.


I think it’s reasonable to say that if there are more pellets in the inner 10-circle of the pattern you are more likely to get the shattering break we identify as “dead center” (when we really are dead center) than if there are fewer pellets in that central 10-inch circle.


You have to keep in mind that even with full chokes such as we used in our testing a perfect hit doesn’t always tell us “perfect hit.” In that rising POA video when the targets were straight-aways there were four apparent centered hits, but only two “looked like it.”


And remember the Challenge. There were three centered targets and 3/4 of the players got one of them right (Target #5) , but only about half scored on the other two. So there is quite a bit of uncertainly which may be the break, or the judgement, or both.


So let’s say, for the purposes of seeing where it leads, accept that more pellets in the central 10 inches give greater likelihood that shooters will be right when they think they are “centered.” The corollary is, or course, that this greater accuracy on centered hits will make it more likely that they will be able to tell them from non-centered hits.


And, sure enough, this Carlson Xtra-full choke tube in a Beretta Optima barrel put more #8 pellets in the center from 32 yards. Not as many as some might have thought, 15, but, on the average, more, and so it should work better for Weak TBR.

There’s one caution. Contained in the above phrase “on the average.” And it warns us not to try to separate single breaks as evidence of much, but rather, as a group and quite a bit of shooting.


On the field we don’t experience those relative pellet counts in smooth comparisons, but rather as an unpredictable mix:

The Xtra-full is usually better, but modified is equal (or better) some of the time. Looking at the X-full trace, notice how it is possible to put a lesser pattern on the bird even when your aim is perfect, and if you took the lesser break as evidence that you were a bit off, you might be led to a change which is unwarranted, or maybe worse.


So my guess is yes, if Weak TBR works, then full chokes are likely to improve its accuracy. And based on your suggestion, our Weak TBR Challenge will include both chokes.


It’s the uncertainly the shot-by-shot graph illustrates that lead us in our article to recommend that if Weak TBR is used, it should be applied to a group of shots, not just one.


“Weak TBR may help you monitor your own, or a student’s, performance in practice or in an event. Just keeping informal track of the quality of the breaks, even just using a couple of categories such as “Smoke” or “Not Smoke,” keeps your mind in the game and helps you keep your focus on the trapfield, not on tonight’s dinner or tomorrow at work. Dead-center hits, one after the other, tell you that you are doing fine. Weak hits, one after the other, tell you that you are a bit off and need to pay attention. Maybe you need to lock your eye on the bird even harder or adjust for the wind or something like that. A long history of weak hits may also tell you that your point-of-impact might improve with a bit of tuning, that light-modified really isn’t enough for singles, or that you simply need more practice; this is a tougher game than you realized.”


Neil

 

[Gapper]

To answer Code5coupe's question of "only full chokes being suitable for trap work", the answer is - NO.

Any choke can give enough information to allow break reading, provided range is close enough to observe it's effect on target breakage. Straight cylinder included.

It's about impossible to read breaks at long range or "chippy hits"; just not enough information, regardless of choke or load.

Full chokes; or near full chokes work at trap because they place a higher number of pellets into the working area of the pattern; that is the largest area without "thin spots" or significant voids. Translates into higher scores for high skill shooters.

Enough clues, I'm busy, and much prefer some folks to wallow in their own intelect. GAP