fundamentals

[Richard H]

We disagree again, all that matters is winning the match (obviously within the rules).
Given the choice of concentrating for example on my weight distribution or on my sight alignment I know which I would go for. Mucking up the former would possibly lose me a point, two at the (unlikely) very most. Muck up the sight alignment and the loss could be much more.

We probably agree on more than we think we disagree.

I'm just puzzled by this concept of only being able to do one thing at a time. Why can't I have an even weight distribution AND keep the sights aligned AND have good trigger control AND maintain a constant grip.

As to the training aspect some shooters will naturally be better at certain fundamentals than others and will have to devote more time perfecting the weaker fundamentals (but that doesn't make them anyless or more important than any of the other fundamentals). To shoot 580's and 590's you pretty much have to be near perfect on all the fundamentals.

The group size difference between shooting 550 and 580 is not necessarily that big, just a few mm's. But those are the thoughest few mm's around.

[David Levene]

We disagree again, all that matters is winning the match (obviously within the rules).
Given the choice of concentrating for example on my weight distribution or on my sight alignment I know which I would go for. Mucking up the former would possibly lose me a point, two at the (unlikely) very most. Muck up the sight alignment and the loss could be much more.

We probably agree on more than we think we disagree.

I'm just puzzled by this concept of only being able to do one thing at a time. Why can't I have an even weight distribution AND keep the sights aligned AND have good trigger control AND maintain a constant grip.

That would obviously be ideal, doing everything perfectly every time. Guess what, if you aren't shooting 600/600 then you aren't perfect; you are doing at least one thing wrong. What are you going to concentrate on, the thing that might be costing you the occasional point or the one that could be costing you a lot more.

As you say, we probably agree on more than we think we disagree. For the rest, I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

[2650 Plus]

David and Richard , Can you possibly agree on this rational that it may be impossible to think of more than one thing at a time in the concious mind. and if that be true one must fill ones mind with thoughts of sight allignment during that criticle period of when the pistol is going to fire. I suggest that the best way to deliver the shot on the target is to start pressure on the trigger and move [mentally] to a steady hold and then to perfecting sight a;;ignment, I am aware that I am repeating myself but I repeat the same consious thought process for every shot and it seems to work better for me than any other sequence I've tried. Good shooting Bill Horton

[RobStubbs]

I'm just puzzled by this concept of only being able to do one thing at a time. Why can't I have an even weight distribution AND keep the sights aligned AND have good trigger control AND maintain a constant grip.

You can do many things at once (you have to or you'd never fire a shot !) but you can only concentrate on a single thing at a time. That's why the subconscious element is so important. It's that that does most of the job whilst you consciously do the other bit.

To shoot 580's and 590's you pretty much have to be near perfect on all the fundamentals.

I'd disagree big time on that. 599 or 600 then you're near perfect. getting 1/3 of your shots out into the 9 ring is way short of perfection, in my opinion - not that I wouldn't be happy with it myself. Remember too that a 10 isn't by definition a perfect shot. It's a good score but it can be the result of imperfect technique or shot execution.

Rob.

[EdStevens]

Just some thoughts. I think this may relate to some of the debate here in terms of hold and accuracy and may help lower-level shooters like myself understand some of the concepts.

I see there being two distinct types of movement affecting accuracy. The first type can be illustrated if you stick your index finger straight out and move your hand in a small circle. This represents inaccuracy caused by hold or wobble. In this case the shot will strike within the wobble zone, assuming a clean break of the shot. The shooter usually accomplishes this by maintaining good sight alignment while the shot breaks. The smaller the wobble zone, the easier it is to shoot a high score, even with shot breaking randomly during the wobble. If you can maintain the sight alignment and time the release of the shot correctly, you can shoot tens even with a significant wobble zone.

You can illustrate the second type of movement by sticking out your index finger, but then pointing the finger off at different angles. This is “deflection” inaccuracy and is seen as a movement of the front sight out of alignment from perfect sight alignment. Because the effect of such a deflection increases dramatically over distance, the inaccuracies caused by deflection are equally dramatic. Anticipating the shot and snatching at the trigger are often the root cause of deflection inaccuracy. Compared to wobble movement, deflection movement while shooting is disastrous. I think that this is why good shooters place so much emphasis on the importance of good sight alignment.

[jackh]

[quote="..............

I'm just puzzled by this concept of only being able to do one thing at a time. Why can't I have an even weight distribution AND keep the sights aligned AND have good trigger control AND maintain a constant grip

...........[/quote]

Make that only two things if you marry in your mind the two, grip and sight alignment. Grip (hold*) gives me my sight alignment. Therefore if I get set and maintain my grip (hold*), my sights are aligned. You read the grip by the aligned sights. You can also read your trigger control at the sight.

* not talking 'hold' as in "9 ring hold", but I am talking the 'hold' I do on a blank wall dryfire. No target, just sight alignment. "Hold" to me describes what I am doing resulting in aligned sights. Not the eventual result of "9 ring hold" as the shot breaks. Confusing. Isn't it....

[Steve Swartz]

Not sure how "authoritative" this is, but we do need to agree on definitions of terms in any case.

Alignment: Keeping front and rear sight in correct relationship to one another

Aim: Front sight in relation to aim point

Sight Picture: combination of both alignment and aim

Modifying yoiur statements slightly to incorporate the above distinctions, I agree.

Also

You can shoot a 600 without being anywhere near "perfect" in your technique for every single shot.

It all depends on your definition of "perfection" . . .

(But yes, your technique/behaviors have to be "within tolerances for shooting a ten" for 60 shots; disregarding, of course, the "accidental ten.")

Steve

[ben]

A part of this thread has stumbled over the question as to whether you really can do two things at once. Recent research into this topic, in the context of driving AND using a mobile phone, has come up with the answer that the brain naturally queues tasks with a delay between tasks of about the reaction time - a few 100 milliseconds. The individual has no awareness of this delay. The research reported that intense practice on the task - not less than 2000 repetitions - DID lead to an ability to do two things at once. A report on this can be found in New Scientist, 7th April, 2007.
In my view, shooting a pistol includes at least 3 conscious processes:
1 Aiming the pistol.
2 Aligning the sights.
3 Pulling the trigger.
I hope this helps.
Ben

[Steve Swartz]

Thanks for the steer to the study!

1. Will have to evaluate the study methodology when I get a chance (still o the road today and no access to my pubs databases); ournals like "New Scientist" don't always publish the cleanest stuff, and in any case, a lot of decent science gets "interpreted" quite a bit by the time it hits teh journal, let alone popular press

2. A 100 ms delay (actually, anything greater than 20 ms) you might as well be delaying in calendar time. A lot can happen in 100 ms; the difference between an 8 and a 10 (depending on speed of your muzzle trace) but in any case, consistency is more important- depending on what theory of shot release you ascribe

3. Aligning, aiming, releasing the shot, manipulating the trigger (once shot is released) is actually 4 things. Releasing shot and actually pressing the trigger are two distinct tasks. So even if you could do two things at once (perfectly simultaneously) you would still be dropping two plates . . .

I agree Ben; even if the study is flawed etc. we are left with the problem of doing at least 3 (maybe 4) things perfectly, and simultaneously.

Seems kind of obvious that some of those tasks need to be delegated (I like Ed Hall's example- breathing, eating, and carrying on a conversation- the conscious parts only work if we "batch" tasks; ie, chew, then swallow, then inhale, then talk). Much easier to breath, regulate heartrate, and carry on a conversation (where tasks are handled simultaneously by different mechanisms).

Steve

[scerir]

Recent research into this topic, in the context of driving AND using a mobile phone, has come up with the answer that the brain naturally queues tasks with a delay between tasks of about the reaction time - a few 100 milliseconds.

Attention is necessary for all the things we do but it is not efficient or possible for us to process every item in our sensory environment
So the brain allocates attention based upon a set of priorities that are valid for 'that' moment and focuses upon specific objects or features.
See, ie, the link below
http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/articleid_4334.html

[bryan]

I think you can consciously do one thing at a time.
but the number of things you can do at once is very high. you just dont realise it. while reading this you are doing thousands of things, but consciously doing one, reading.

So if a juggler is juggling 4 axes, which one is he thinking about?

If his assistant throws him a running chain saw, so has 4 axes and a chain saw, which one is he thinking about?


bryan

[Steve Swartz]

He is thinking about one thing at a time . . . juggling.

A more technical answer can be provided, of course, having to do with the act of juggling itself and how the process can be managed as a serial process. A more detailed, but not technical answer, would go like this: he is thinking about the next one task necessary to keep the "juggle" going. This "queuing model" assumes, of course, that "juggling" is a conscious process. If, on the other hand, we accept that part of the "juggling" process can be handled non-consciously, then "there you are!"

Steve Swartz

(The research I am familiar with shows that we can only *think about* [e.g., conscious process] one thing at a time . . . however, we can perform multiple simultaneous tasks [breathing, heart beating, etc.] certainly, using a combination(s) of conscious and non-conscious processes.)

[bryan]

thats interesting, I never really got the idea of juggling things, maybe because I try to do it consciously?
if you apply the zen principle, if he stops his mind to any one task, he might be looking for a new job!

steve, the post on agreeing with definition of terms is one of the best ideas.


to add to it I think

conscious thought= when you talk to yourself, lower level
subconscious thought=when you just do it, higher level
imagination=picture it
Imagining something does not = using your imagination

sure there will be different ideas.

If you put your left hand on your pocket, then go through the shot process, you will usually find your hand where you left it when it is time to reload, yet we did not think about it for the whole shot, but it is part of the shot process.

if your standing in a group talking, when was the last time you had to stop to rebalance yourself, short of drinking lots of amber fluid!

I would put most of these under muscle memory, things you learn to do, that you dont have to consciously think about to do.


bryan

[2650 Plus]

Bryan, you often confuse the hell out of me , then you post something that makes a wonderful sort of sense. The thinking at a concious level can be used to auto- sugest a completely different action other than the one being thought about. I taught my trigger finger to move any time i was thinking { concentrating/ visualizing} about perfecting sight allignment. This took many hours of concentrated intense effort with me holding my pistol ready to dry fire, and having a drawing of perfectly alligned sighta super imposed against a very fuzzy grey thingy that I used to set up the process. I would visualize how my finger felt when I was firing my best shot {s } then tell the finger to move the same way when my mind was engaged in perfecting sight allignment. I would then consentrate on the picture described above and wait for the hammer/striker to fire. It took months of training for this to become reliable enough to be able to use in competition . Good Shooting Bill Horton

[bryan]

thanks bill, that is a very good explanation of your trigger

My only comment on your last post is your visualisation. If I was coaching you I would have you visualise the whole shot, including recoil, sound, shot placement (not result). then do it. (shot placement last)
this is to help improve your groups compared with hold.
by telling your subconscious shot placement, works like what you are currently doing with the trigger. this adds to your current shot plan, not replace it.
you can feel the recoil as you picture it if you want.
this is for a single shot.


my intensions are not to confuse, but rather put things in a way that makes sense. all feedback is welcome, I failed esp at school.

bryan

[Ed Hall]

I know I'm coming into this discussion somewhat late, but would like to add something "different" to some earlier material.

It appears that there is a concensus that a ten fired during the best hold is due to the shooter's ability to recognize that hold (or possibly its oncoming) and initiate the shot such that ignition happens during that best hold. This appears to be referenced by many, including Anatoliy Piddubnyy. It also "appears" to be backed up by ET traces. But, what if the "shot break during best hold" scenario is really a best hold driven by impending shot break scenario? IOW, what if the trigger operation is initiated and the hold stabilizes to coincide with the completion of the shot? Seems like that would be a lot easier to perform than trying to calculate the best "lead" time...

Remember that everything we observe, in any way, with any physical sense has already happened before we know about it. This includes that perfect alignment of sights. The best we can hope for consciously is to set up what I often call an "environment for success" and try to let the shot happen from there. But what if we train to start the trigger, move to sight alignment and look for minimum arc to occur as the shot completes?

Just something to toss out - BTW, The late Franklin Green, of Air Force and Olympic fame, preached just that - Start the trigger and then move to the sights.

Take Care,
Ed Hall
http://www.airforceshooting.org/
http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/

[funtoz]

[Steve Swartz]

Ed:

Ref what Larry said . . . jsut a couple of weeks ago (in response to a discussion between Bill Horton & some others) the "Two Theories" came up.

One of the points I made "up front" in the discussion is that you and I and some others had kicked this around before; and about the only things we all clearly agreed on is that

1. We could be experiencing the same exact process, but explain it in opposite ways- "definitely sights drive trigger, and certainly not trigger drives sights" or vice versa!

2. There is probably no way of knowing - short of brain scans and electronic implants - exactly which is going on. And it probably doesn't make a difference in the end . . . because how would it affect our training or approach differently?

Anyhow sorry if I am misrepresenting or mischaracterizing the nature of the previous "Thread That Would Not Die" on this topic . . .

Although I have "seen with my own eyes" in a rapid fire string the trigger driving the sights- how do I know that my trigger wasn't just recognizing the upcoming conditions and permission the release? Conversely, even though I "see with my own eyes" that the trigger just "happens" [surprise break], before the perfect sight picture [both align and aim] seems to be "ready," how do I know that the trigger wasn't "psuhing" the final juxtaposition of sights and target?

Is this truly a "Toma-to, Tomah-to" issue?

Steve Swartz

[Ed Hall]

Well, from personal experience I can relate examples that fall within my current belief of starting the trigger consciously and then finalizing the sights. Of course, we can all find examples to prove anything we truly believe in...

Example 1: If I start the trigger as I enter the aiming area, the completion is normally a better shot than it looked to my historic observation of where it landed. I'm currently not settling as nicely as I'd prefer, but I've been away from shooting for a bit and am just getting back into it.

Example 2: (actually a reverse example with poor results) If I wait for a nice settle and either initiate the trigger or wait for it, too often the trigger stops somewhere to fine tune the sights and I wind up finishing it after the hesitation(s). These shots often land worse than they appeared through my historic vision.

The real kicker: Lately I'm rushed to get through the Rapid Fire strings in BE pistol. If I go with a quick trigger and just pointing at the target, I get much better results than if I'm trying too hard to perfect the sights first.

Steve,

Do you remember our lecture with Bill Blankenship when he told us to expect the gun to fire and make sure to have the sights aligned when it does?

From that, Meidinger and several others, I remember the reference to racing the sights: the shot is going to happen - try to align the sights before it does.

As an observation, I often find my trigger starting off somewhat medium in speed, but finishing extremely quick. I haven't decided if my subconscious was trying to finish it before I messed up the sights or it was just in a hurry, but quite often I like the results. Maybe my subconscious was driving the alignment and trigger. Maybe I'm getting to the natural event of deciding to fire a ten and then doing so. That would be nice...

Take Care,
Ed Hall
http://www.airforceshooting.org/
http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/

[2650 Plus]

Ed, I have nothing to add. Good Shooting Bill Horton