S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 members (bushveld, 1 invisible),
1,097
guests, and
4
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,468
Posts545,141
Members14,409
|
Most Online1,271 4 hours ago
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,149 Likes: 1147
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,149 Likes: 1147 |
I know this is a question that may possibly be better suited for another forum, but here I am, and here goes. It is generally accepted that the longer the barrel(s) on a shotgun the less the perceived lead will be on a specific target presentation. I do not argue this and, in fact believe this may be the reason so many of the best sporting clay competitors in the world are using 32" barrels now ......... it's just easier to replicate a shorter perceived lead on repetitive targets than it is a longer lead. So, I do not question the premise. But, my question is why. Why do 32" barrels make the perceived lead look less that that of a shorter barrel(s)? I'm looking for an answer that is based on the physics ............. plain and simple (numbers, if necessary ). Anybody here understand the mechanics of it well enough to explain it to me? Thanks, SRH
May God bless America and those who defend her.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,961 Likes: 9
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,961 Likes: 9 |
It's my opinion that longer barrels swing better and are harder to stop. I shoot skeet and it looks the same 26 or 32 inch
bill
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,018 Likes: 50
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,018 Likes: 50 |
Is the center of balance farther forward on 32 inch barreled guns?
Michael Dittamo Topeka, KS
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,116 Likes: 92
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,116 Likes: 92 |
I dont accept the premise regarding longer barrels and perceived lead. Where is this written?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,600 Likes: 13
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,600 Likes: 13 |
Physics tells us that it is only a misguided perception.
The shooter's line of sight, presuming he has mounted the gun correctly and has his cheek firmly on the comb, resembles a ray. A ray is perfectly straight but is not a line. A line has a beginning and an end while a ray has neither. The line of sight follows a ray along the rib, through the bead or beads and continues in a predetermined direction through a point at a specific distance ahead of the moving target.
No barrel length will change this.
Last edited by DAM16SXS; 09/22/17 10:17 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,436 Likes: 34
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,436 Likes: 34 |
No barrel length will change this. True, but if you think in terms of minutes of angle (MOA), it is ever so slightly easier to estimate lead on a crossing target if the barrel is longer. Enough to be significant? Probably not. Think about a dove crossing at 40 yards (120 feet), flying at 60mph. 60mph is 88 ft/sec. A load at 1200fps will take 1/10 of a second to travel from the shooter's position to the point at which the dove will cross the line of the shot. 1/10 of 88 feet is 8.8 feet, so there's your lead. If the barrel (or ray) is 40 yards long, it would be (theoretically) easier to maintain the correct lead with a 40 yard barrel than with a 28" barrel. So, theoretically, a longer barrel helps with lead. In practice, I think it's hooey. Advantage is probably swing weight and gun balance on that kind of target.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,718 Likes: 479
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,718 Likes: 479 |
40 plus years ago, when I was shooting Skeet seriously, 26" was the norm and 28" was considered long barrels. Four barrel sets were the ultimate and sets of pumps or semi autos were what poor people had to shoot. Then along came Claude Purbaugh and later Jess Briley, Skeet Masters and Kolar tubes. Combined they changes Skeet for ever. Tighter choke and heavy guns became the norm. We accepted that barrel heavy guns were better because we did not stop our swing. We accepted that 28" was better than 26", in turn we accepted that 30" was better than 28" because the longer sighting plane and more forward weight was smoother. Later it became 32" and even 34" made a decent following. It is the Indian not the bow or the arrow.
Truth is that if you mount the gun and look right down the barrels the length becomes impossible to know. I perceive that same lead for short or long barrels. It all looks like it is half an inch long to me. MOI is another matter but you could get the same MOI by changing the weight distribution so that 26" barrels weighted the same as 32" barrels. It would cost money but it can be done if you desire. Most of my longer barreled guns I shoot better because they are heavier and my swing is smoother.
What really has changed is the chokes we use and the quality of our ammo, especially in the smaller gauges. Today's ammo is vastly better than anything we had back then. If I had today's Winchester AAHS or the Remington equivalent several of my 395-397 would have been 399-400's unless that lump in my through caused me to choke.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,149 Likes: 1147
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,149 Likes: 1147 |
I dont accept the premise regarding longer barrels and perceived lead. Where is this written? It may or may not have been "written" somewhere, but I've been around many excellent sporting clays shooters and some hellacious dove shots over the last 50+ years, and it is a perception among many of the better shooters that this is so. I won't sit here and say that I can tell the difference between the lead on a 30" barrel and a 32", I can't. But, I have shot clays with a 36" barreled Valmet O/U (they were sold as waterfowlers), and there sure is a difference, to me, between what I must see to break the bird with it and with a similar 26" barreled gun. Don't disparage the notion until you have tried vastly different lengths yourself .............. 10" of barrel length makes a difference. BTW, the 36" Valmet is a ribless wonder of a gun. It handles beautifully for all it's cumbersome length. Absolutely amazing, I'd love for Don to spin one. The barrels are very lightweight for their length. Maybe it's impossible to quantify this with physics, like so much of the rest of the mental side of shotgunning. Perception can be reality ........... if you believe it affects your shooting it probably will. This will probably drive Wonko bonkers. SRH
May God bless America and those who defend her.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,149 Likes: 1147
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,149 Likes: 1147 |
What if part of the way the brain processes perceived lead is based upon the width of the muzzle in comparison to the size of the target? IOW, what if your brain "uses" the muzzle width as a reference? Not saying it does, just wondering aloud.
Billy Perdue, one of the most successful American live pigeon shooters in modern times, shot a S x S. He said that the reason he did was because shooting box birds is mostly a game of elevation, and the greater width of the S x Ss barrels gives a better reference for the mind to process elevation lead. If that's the case, couldn't a difference in perceived width affect the brain's ability to calculate lead on crossers? If so, it could also help explain the difficulty many have with a .410 when they first begin to shoot one at doves or targets.
Food for thought.
SRH
May God bless America and those who defend her.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,149 Likes: 1147
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,149 Likes: 1147 |
Is the center of balance farther forward on 32 inch barreled guns? No, not necessarily. SRH
May God bless America and those who defend her.
|
|
|
|
|