Average shooters, average group sizes?

[jeremiahm]

So, I've shot a little bit one handed standing here lately. I'm wondering what the average shooters, let's say a guy with a year or two of shooting a bullseye league, is shooting as far as group sizes at 50 and 25 yards?

Are those shooters holding the 6 ring or 7 ring, or what?

Bear with me, I've never been to my first match yet. Next week I should get my first match-like experience.

[mk70ss]

Shooting 25 yard bullseye matches, I average 273 if that helps.

[Isabel1130]

It depends. I have been shooting bullseye for a little over a year now and I am for the most part holding the black in slowfire and have been averaging in the low 90s for timed and rapid. For a while my scores with the .45 really lagged behind but now they are picking up and when I don't have an issue with my dot (my mount on my .45 has been coming loose) I am averaging high sharpshooter scores with all three guns. You will find that scores in timed fire seem to be ahead of scores in either rapid or slow for some people and a lot of inexperienced shooters are likely to shoot timed fire very well but still struggle in rapid fire and slow fire. You will see many expert class shooters who have shot bullseye for years that do great in sustained fire but are losing most of their points in slow fire.A good master class shooter will be staying in the low 90's in slow and for the most part cleaning targets in timed and rapid fire especially with the .22. It really depends on the shooter. The 50 foot targets are particularly difficult and a lot of people will do better on either the reduced slow fire targets at 25 yards and also the outdoor ones at 50. I shoot my .45 bettter in slow fire than I do my .22. Don't know why. just the way it is. Scores in league seem to average a little lower because a lot of people shoot league with their .22 who never go out and shoot all three guns in a 2700.

[2650 Plus]

Just an opinion for what it is worth. Your score will reflect what you know about how you shoot and how you apply what you have learned about how you should fire the shot. Knowledge is the secrete to performance and applying that knowledge will give you the ability control each shot. Read the hitchikers guide posted on this web sight. Then read it again . Go to the range and apply what you have just read as completely as you can. Come back and read it again. See if you still understand it the same as before you went to the range. Good Shooting Bill Horton

[jeremiahm]

Hitchhiker's Guide, I'd LOVE to read it.

But, I CAN'T FIND IT.

I done a search on the subject and five threads popped it with posts talking about particular parts of the guide. Where is the actual guide located??

[Guest]

http://www.pilkguns.com/menu_coaching.shtml

[john bickar]

Who wants to be average?

[2650 Plus]

OO RAH John.

[jackh]

I think there are two ways to look at your group on target.
One, the actual main cluster of shots will be a measurable size. ( I prefer to describe mine by relative ring size. i.e. 9 ring at 50 yds which is pretty good for me )
Two, as most of us do not shoot like Bill or Brian or John or Steve?, there will be a number, maybe a percentage of shots outside the main cluster.
So group size and shots actually performed well (in group) are two measurable goals.

[Steve Swartz as Guest]

A "Theoretical" Example:

1. First time cleaned .45 long line had a knothole completely enclosed by X ring . . . with two flyers that barely nicked the ten ring.

2. Next long line target had a perfectly round, evenly distributed group that scored 97 5X.

Which was the better target?

Why or why not?

Steve

[Isabel1130]

A "Theoretical" Example:

1. First time cleaned .45 long line had a knothole completely enclosed by X ring . . . with two flyers that barely nicked the ten ring.

2. Next long line target had a perfectly round, evenly distributed group that scored 97 5X.

Which was the better target?

Why or why not?

Steve

Steve, the first was the better target because so many of your shots were tightly grouped in the x ring. I don't consider a flyer that touches the ten ring to be a flyer. :-) Although those flyers can be the result of ammo at 50 yards. The second target was good, you were very consistant but of course it wasn't clean. :-) My best target so far in .45 slow fire was 94-4x. I have done a little better in practice but that is my best so far in competition. Isabel

[alb]

A "Theoretical" Example:

1. First time cleaned .45 long line had a knothole completely enclosed by X ring . . . with two flyers that barely nicked the ten ring.

2. Next long line target had a perfectly round, evenly distributed group that scored 97 5X.

Which was the better target?

Why or why not?

Steve

The better target is the one that had the better score, of course. The total group size is smaller as well.

If you dropped the worst 3 shots from each group, then the second group would be better. Unfortunately, we can't do this in bullseye.

The original poster was asking about average group size, however. Someone who averages 97 has a larger standard deviation for the radial error of individual shots than someone who averages 100. This translates into a larger average group size for groups of a given number of shots. This was discussed in agonizing detail by H. E. Daniels in his 1952 paper, "The Covering Circle of a Sample From a Circular Normal Distribution."

And, of course, someone who averages 97 will have a lower average total score than someone who averages 100.

I read somewhere that it takes a minimum of about 10,000 hours of practice to become 'world-class' at anything, whether it be a sport, or playing a musical instrument, or a game like chess, etc. This translates to 20 hours per week, every week, for 10 years, i.e., your basic, olympic-class athlete. Since bullseye shooters don't compete at bullseye internationally, it's difficult to extrapolate to what 'world-class' would be at bullseye. I would bet, however, that we are talking about someone who averages better than 2650.

Just guessing, but I would say it probably takes about 2,000 hours of practice to reach 'master' level, and about 6,000 hours to reach 'high-master' level. To reach the point where you are averaging better than 2650 would take the full 10,000 hours.

Of course, the master level shooters that I know don't break 2565 all that frequently, and the high-masters that I now dont break 2619 all that often either, with a couple of exceptions -- and those people generally win all of the matches in their skill class. Again, it takes a lot more work to turn a high score from a two-sigma event into a one-sigma event.

As to the original poster's question regarding someone with one to two years of experience, how much practice time did he have during those one to two years?

Al B.

[Steve Swartz as Guest]

Oh dang it! I must have been too transparent . . .

. . . of course the second group is better.

First group I executed perfectly 8/10 times. A flyer is a flyer no matter what level you are shooting at. F'ing up is still F'ing up. The two yanked shots were (yoiu guessed it) the last two in the series. And yes I was glassing every shot.

Then my firing pin spring broke (didn't know it at the time; just knew firing pin wasn't sliding too and fro) and I borrowed someone else's gun.

Second group I executed perfectly 10 shots out of 10.

This experience is probably the sinle most important event that led me down the path of taking a "Behavioral" approach to my shooting.

If you execute each shot perfectly ("Doing Your Part") you will, by definition, have done the best you could.

Anything less is, well, less regardless of the holes in the pper.

Steve

[alb]

Oh dang it! I must have been too transparent . . .

. . . of course the second group is better.

Steve

Oh, Steve, Steve, Steve! Shame on you!

At the risk of deliberately missing your point, allow me to observe that:

- 8 X's and 2 tens equals 100-8X
- 7 X's and 3 nines equals 97-7X
- 7 X's, 3 nines plus 3 pounds of excuses still equals 97-7X

100-8X beats 97-7X every time, in every type of competition I've ever heard of.

Allow me to also observe that your original question was, "Which is the better target?", not "Which was the better effort?"

And, since you neglected to mention any details of the effort needed to produce each target, it was not only impossible to infer what you meant with your question from your description, but it was impossible to make any analysis at all of the effort required to produce each of the two targets.

And, oh, by the way, even with your supplemental subjective description of your efforts, it's still impossible to make an objective determination of which was the better effort.

Tsk! Tsk!

Al B.

[Bull Shoals]

Shot a pair of 294"s out of 300 with 14 and 12X's yesterday at our 25 yd matches. Using A Ruger M11 5.5" bull bbl w/ Clark trigger. Ammo was Federal 550 bulk.

[Steve Swartz as Guest]

Alb:

"Effort" is irrelevant.

I put the sme "Effort" into both sets of shots.

In one case, I executed the behaviors required for high performance much better than the other . . . However

If all i was interested in was the holes in paper (and not what causes them) I would/could be pretty significanlty misled in my assessment of training effectiveness.

My point is the aspiring shooter should focus his/her resources on improving htings they can control . . . and ignore things they can't control . . .

Too often I speak to shooters who ar obsessed over spending time/effort/money on things that are irrelevant (or harmful).

A related issue:

How many of us focus our attention on

"Finding and Fixing What I Am Doing Wrong"

vs.

Focusing On Doing What is The Right Thing To Do?"

Steve

[P.S. the "natural" way to approach training and competing seems to be "analyzing what I did wrong and trying to reduce my errors." It is very counterintuitive to focus instead on "concentrating on executing the proper behaviors." The first philosophy is always focused on the ERRORS of the LAST SHOT. The second philosophy is focused on how to PROPERLY deliver the NEXT SHOT.]

[jackh]

I don't think the right vs wrong things thinking is that clear -cut. The "behaviors" right and wrong are too interwoven to simply just remove an element and still have a complete structure. The right thing to do is to recognize the wrong and the right, remove that wrong thing and re-assemble/re-arrange a new behavior package.

Ironic though it is, that thinking is the wrong thing in most all cases.

[alb]

Hi Steve.

I'm not sure that there is any difference between what I was referring to as 'effort' and what you are referring to as 'behavior'. In any event, please substitute the word 'behavior' for the word 'effort' in my previous post and read it again.

And I'm also not sure what you mean when you refer to 'errors'. Do you mean things like gripping the gun incorrectly -- something one tends to do repeatedly? If so, then "eliminating that error" is merely another way of saying, "improving your technique." You do agree that it's important to work on improving your technique, don't you?

Perhaps it would be better to think of it as "eliminating sources of randomness." This would not only include improving quality and the consistency of one's technique, but also inproving the quality and the consistency of one's equipment and ammunition, not drinking 8 cups of coffee before a match, reducing our level of arousal to managable levels so that our hands don't shake, etc.

You wrote that, "The first philosophy is always focused on the ERRORS of the LAST SHOT. The second philosophy is focused on how to PROPERLY deliver the NEXT SHOT." While I don't disagree with this, let me point out that this attitude contains the unstated presupposition that we already know how to properly execute the next shot. For some of us, however, there is still room for improvement in our knowledge, our technique and our skill. In this regard, thinking about how to deliver a better score IN THE NEXT MATCH is also important. This necessarily includes looking for ways to improve our technique.

Also, allow me to point out that your previous post contained the unwarranted presupposition that your kinesthetic sense was 100 percent perfect, leading you to believe that your two 10's were 'flyers' rather than a natural consequence of your less-than-perfect arc-of-movement. Of course, your three 9's on the second target were worse -- but you had an excuse for those -- you were using someone else's pistol!

On the other hand, maybe those three shots went into the 9-ring because that's where the gun was pointed when you broke the shot.

The fact that you were thinking about it at all during a match means that: a) you were thinking too much, and b) you were thinking about that last shot -- which you just said is the wrong thing to do.

How then, do you assess the effectiveness of your training? Do you do it on a shot-by-shot basis? Or a target-by-target basis? Or a match-by-match basis? Or do you assess the improvement in your scores (or lack thereof) over a much longer period of time?

The fact is, a 100-8X is better than a 97-7X, period. Always has been, always will be. And someone who averages 570/600 over a long period of time is a better shooter than someone who averages 520/600, period. And analyzing two targets as a way of assessing training training effectiveness is pretty useless -- please excuse me for not realizing that was what you were alluding to in your first post. On the other hand, someone who averages 520/600 is demonstrating considerable room for improvement in his technique. Lanny Bassham not withstanding, it really doesn't matter whether you say it that way, or you say that he's doing a lot of things wrong.

Those of us who don't have coaches need to pay close attention to what we see, what we feel and where the bullet goes when we break a shot so that we can analyze what we need to do to improve, because nobody else is going to tell us.

Regards,

Al B.

[Steve Swartz]

Alb:

We (you and I) on previous occasions have gotten tangled up in what seemed to be semantics; on more than one occasion (IIRC) "vehemently agreeing past each other" so to speak.

I apologize for that in advance; as after some reflection I think we may be headed down that path again. Please allow me to maybe try explaining myself from a different angle.

Here's something I think we can agree on for now (?); based on one of your points which I think is much more important than a lot of folks give it credit for:

The shooter needs to know what constitutes "proper behavior."

(substitute "technique" for "behavior;" substitute "leading reliably to desired results" for "proper" if that helps?).

One might think that the proof of the desired result is a hole in the ten ring.

When the hole in the ten ring has resulted from the proper execution of behaviors, leading to the desired result, all is well with the world.

However, a hole in the ten ring can/has/will result from incorrect technique elements that cancel each other out (e.g. "My alignment was off but I jerked it into the ten ring"). One would think this phenomenon to be quite rare; I'm not so sure actually. It may be more common than we realize (one old High Master shooter seemed to think the "cancelling errors" is actually something we all do to some degree subconsciously all the time).

My personal philosophy has come around to the realization that:

1) A ten resulting from proper execution of behaviors is a Good Thing
2) A ten resulting from complementary errors is a Bad Thing

and, perhaps most significantly (for me at least)

3) Many shooters struggle with defining, recognizing, and executing "proper behaviors" in the first place

Most fundamentally, a common failure to define "good behavior" that tends to hold many shooters from reaching their potential is very simple, yet pernicious and hard to overcome:

"My job is to get all the elements of the sight picture lined up, and then squeeze the trigger without disturbing anything."

This grossly inappropriate definition of (several combined) element(s) of technique can be a real killer . . .

Steve

[2650 Plus]

My goal is to fire every shot within my ability to hold. My firing sequence is based on the concept of moving into my hold area starting the trigger finger moving and then devoting all mental and physical effort s in perfecting sight allignment before the pistol fires. Note that my most perfect deliveries of the shot occur as I am correcting a very minor error when the pistol fires.It seems to be much more difficult to have a perfect shot after perfection in sight allignment has occured and the attempt is made to continue perfection for any length of time.Ie waiting for the shot to break. To me, a corectly executed shot is always satisfactory as long as it falls with in my ability to hold the pistol as still as posible. Good Shooting Bill Horton