TargetTalk

Cut out a target and choose the size that feels challenging but possible for you at this time. For example if you often manage to hit the nine, cut out the nine and use that round measure method to cover your groups. That helps you to understand the importance of executing consistently good shots and as a bonus of this getting tight groups.

And in practice on your own try to do increase the level by doing tasks, like 3 shots in a row in the nine ring or at least within your measurecircle, 5 shots, 7 shots, 9 shots, 11 shots and so on.

And in practice with others try to to challenge each others, for example the shooter that first shoots 12 shots in a row in the nine ring gets an icecream as a price from the opponent.

1. The Rika helps with some of the measurements (timing, settle and triggering primarily)

2. Yes/No works better; as long as you understand that as your performane improves what constitutes "acceptable" *will* change (your personal standards will get tighter and tighter- that is A Good Thing)

3. The main point is *not* that the self evaluation is particularly accurate (it isn't; on purpose) or precise (certainly not). The main point is that by watching and attempting to measure your performance against these critical behavioral elements your performance against those behaviors will improve. Whether you are able to accuratley or precisely measure this improvement directly is not the point. The point is if you don't pay attention to improving your performance against these behaviors, well, what *are* you doing?

4. While I claim that a "focused" approach to process improvement will yield results "faster" than a scattershot, "looking for the quick hit" or opportunistic approach, the definiion of "faster" is somewhat relative . . . there is no substitute for hard work over time. All I argue is that focused hard work over time takes less time than opportunistic (or unfocused) effort over time.

I am always looking for a better way . . . just like everyone else . . . but the basic tenet of identifying those behaviors that are critical to acheiving results, and then improving performance on those behaviors makes a lot of sense to me.

Steve

Simple does not equal Easy

Steve Swartz as Guest wrote: the basic tenet of identifying those behaviors that are critical to acheiving results, and then improving performance on those behaviors makes a lot of sense to me.

Steve,
That makes a lot of sense to me too. It's the following concept that does not make sense to me.

Steve Swartz as Guest wrote:The main point is that by watching and attempting to measure your performance against these critical behavioral elements your performance against those behaviors will improve.

Because there is no real measuring involved, but rather simply self-judgment, and because there is no direct correlation between the self-judgments and the results on paper, this statement seems to me to be essentially circular.

I can certainly see applying this kind of self-judgment when training on an individual behavior, e.g. dry firing and evaluating only the quality of trigger pull. However using this self-judgment on the integrated shot process does not seem workable. Even worse, I felt it was counter-productive, because it turns the whole focus of the shot process towards self-judgment, with all its negative connotations. This, I feel, is a big confidence destroyer.

Maybe this would work for someone who already shoots nearly all 10s, but for someone who is trying to learn how to shoot tens, I feel there are too many things going on all at once in the integrated shot process for this method to be positive.

Regards,
FredB

FredB wrote:<snip>
Because there is no real measuring involved, but rather simply self-judgment, and because there is no direct correlation between the self-judgments and the results on paper, this statement seems to me to be essentially circular.

I can certainly see applying this kind of self-judgment when training on an individual behavior, e.g. dry firing and evaluating only the quality of trigger pull. However using this self-judgment on the integrated shot process does not seem workable. Even worse, I felt it was counter-productive, because it turns the whole focus of the shot process towards self-judgment, with all its negative connotations. This, I feel, is a big confidence destroyer.

Regards,
FredB

Fred,
If I can add some comments.

In training you're focussing on one thing at a time to improve. So a simple example is follow through. Your measures are self judgement - "was my follow through good, and for roughly what % of my shots"
So to evaluate you need to know what you're measuring, what is good and what isn't. To more accurately record your progress you mark every shot as you do them - a tick or a cross is fine. At the end of the session you add the numbers up.

Forget the whole shot process, you're not training that so don't worry about it, ditto forget where the shots fall, it's irrrelevant.

At the end of your training cycle (of for example a couple of months, working on a number of individual elements), you just concentrate on building a smooth shot cycle. What you have trained should have become subconscious and will therefore integrate fully into your shot cycle, without you having to think about it. You will now be ready to shoot matches to your optimum ability and you can practice matches ahead of the major ones.

Rob.

RobStubbs wrote:At the end of your training cycle (of for example a couple of months, working on a number of individual elements), you just concentrate on building a smooth shot cycle. What you have trained should have become subconscious and will therefore integrate fully into your shot cycle, without you having to think about it. You will now be ready to shoot matches to your optimum ability and you can practice matches ahead of the major ones.

There is one big element missing from this; training to compete.

We have all seen the shooter who can produce fantastic results on their home range but can never reproduce it in a big match. The most common reason, and one we see mentioned here frequently, is match pressure.

The usual response to shooters asking about how to deal with that pressure is "shoot more matches". We very rarely see any advice to "train to shoot matches.

The simplest way I know of doing this is quite simply to find a training partner, preferably of similar ability (but handicaps can be applied if there is a difference). What is important however is that both should be competitive by nature. Maybe once a week you get together to shoot. It will soon turn into a friendly match. There will be no prize at the end but it will be desparately important to each that they win. Competitive people will always compete.

RobStubbs wrote:What you have trained should have become subconscious and will therefore integrate fully into your shot cycle, without you having to think about it.

I could not agree more and think this is what it all comes down to and what quality training time will naturally produce.

David Levene wrote:

RobStubbs wrote:At the end of your training cycle (of for example a couple of months, working on a number of individual elements), you just concentrate on building a smooth shot cycle. What you have trained should have become subconscious and will therefore integrate fully into your shot cycle, without you having to think about it. You will now be ready to shoot matches to your optimum ability and you can practice matches ahead of the major ones.

There is one big element missing from this; training to compete.

We have all seen the shooter who can produce fantastic results on their home range but can never reproduce it in a big match. The most common reason, and one we see mentioned here frequently, is match pressure.

The usual response to shooters asking about how to deal with that pressure is "shoot more matches". We very rarely see any advice to "train to shoot matches.

The simplest way I know of doing this is quite simply to find a training partner, preferably of similar ability (but handicaps can be applied if there is a difference). What is important however is that both should be competitive by nature. Maybe once a week you get together to shoot. It will soon turn into a friendly match. There will be no prize at the end but it will be desparately important to each that they win. Competitive people will always compete.

Another way is to train to succeed and harbor a genuine belief in your ability to do so. Right now my best answer to calming down in a match is to just smile. I have trained that to truely mean: I am having fun. It will give me great pleasure to do the very best that I can and it's easy to do by just executing the simple basics that I know so well. By doing that I will do well. All that in just a smile.

Competitive people will always compete but also remember that winners have but one rival -- themselves. ;)

Philadelphia wrote:Another way is to train to succeed and harbor a genuine belief in your ability to do so. Right now my best answer to calming down in a match is to just smile.

Use whatever method helps you to beat everyone else.

David Levene wrote:

RobStubbs wrote:At the end of your training cycle (of for example a couple of months, working on a number of individual elements), you just concentrate on building a smooth shot cycle. What you have trained should have become subconscious and will therefore integrate fully into your shot cycle, without you having to think about it. You will now be ready to shoot matches to your optimum ability and you can practice matches ahead of the major ones.

There is one big element missing from this; training to compete.

We have all seen the shooter who can produce fantastic results on their home range but can never reproduce it in a big match. The most common reason, and one we see mentioned here frequently, is match pressure.

The usual response to shooters asking about how to deal with that pressure is "shoot more matches". We very rarely see any advice to "train to shoot matches.

The simplest way I know of doing this is quite simply to find a training partner, preferably of similar ability (but handicaps can be applied if there is a difference). What is important however is that both should be competitive by nature. Maybe once a week you get together to shoot. It will soon turn into a friendly match. There will be no prize at the end but it will be desparately important to each that they win. Competitive people will always compete.

I wasn't attempting to cover shooting training / coaching from A to Z, merely trying to clarify things or reword in a (hopefully) more understandable fashion. And of course you're correct, although I don't find the buddy system helps with real competitions. It can only ever be a substitute match with a different environment and different pressures - almost all of of which are of our own making.

Rob.

Steve Swartz as Guest wrote:
- Was my trigger execution rapid, smooth, and balanced with no affect on alignment?

Steve

Steve

Others have raised concerns as to the subjective nature of the list and the potential for some users to be too self critical (maybe that is something they need to work on as well). Me, I think it is spot on. So much so I now have a copy, in large print, stuck to my home shooting bench. Thanks.

However, the "rapid" blew me away.

In air pistol I have never had a rapid trigger execution.

In the dueling component of center fire my trigger execution is rapid - has to be - and here I am talking rapid not rushed. But in AP!!!

This is not a criticism more a case of after years of slow "smooth and balanced" trigger execution I'm left asking "Have I been doing it wrong all this time?"

Should trigger execution be the same for AP as for dueling?

Please define "rapid trigger execution" for air pistol.

Perhaps each of us apply pressure to the trigger at a different rate, and what one of us might consider fast may be excruiatingly slow to another. My approach has been to allow the trigger finger to move at what seems to be the most natural rate and cooridinate the firing of the pistol with best hold in two ways. First is initial pressure on the heavier triggers , And the other has to do with when I start the finger moving. In all cases the finger starts moving before I focus on sight allignment. I say again that I think my way through the shot step by step as the non thinking technique doesn't work for me . I have a tendancy to think destructive thoughts all to often to be able to rely on maintaining a totally blank mind for the duration of the shot sequence. Good Shooting Bill Horton

"Rapid" is associated with "Consistent."

Assume (for the sake of argument) you have a 1000 millisecond start-finish trigger manipulation.

A 10% variance in your "trigger stroke" yields a 900-1100 ms range of completion times.

The muzzle moves quite a lot over that time period . . . and it becomes very, very difficult for your brain to predict where the muzzle is going to be between 900 and 1100 ms.

Cut that time in half- to 500 ms, with a 10% variance, and you now have a "trigger stroke" that varies between 450-550 ms.

That reduction in variance, and reduction in lead time, makes for a much more predictable muzzle path. Your brain can predict the travel path of the muzzle during the trigger stroke than it would witht eh same relative error over a longer duration.

ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL

A smooth, straight-to-the-rear trigger squeeze that is also rapid is more consistent and more predicatable than an equally smooth, equally consistent, equally straight-to-the-rear slower squeeze.

Did that make sense?

I beleive Frank Green wrote an excellent article about increasing the speed of his trigger stroke in the Pistol Shooter's Treasury . . . so I am certainly not taking credit for the idea . . .

Steve

Steve, the very predictablity of a too rapid squese can cause the dreaded flinch before the pistol fires. For me the pressure must be slow enough to allow for the surprise shot and I am willing to allow my hold during best stillness to give me my chance for a near perfect shot placement. To fast is too much like a jerk for my technique. I'm not arguying with you about the concept but am stating the problem I've had trying to use this technique.. Good Shooting, Bill Horton

Bill:

Here's a parallel:

"Squeeze the grip zas hard as you can without shaking"

Does this mean to squeeze so hard the gunh shakes?

No, of course not!

Every time I have discussed the concept of the rapid, smooth trigger stroke I have NEVER even hinted that you should "jerk" or "snatch" or "flinch" or anything like it.

So, if you want to lump "a smooth, straight, rapid press through the follow through" in with jerk/snatch/flinch or whatever . . .

. . . you're on your own, Brother.

(p.s. Bill, the way you describe your trigger stroke sounds an awful lot like the "variable pressure" technique espoused by some european organizations in the 1970s. VP involves increasing trigger pressure when the sight picture is improving, and holding [or even relaxing presure slightly] when the sight picture is deteriorating. David, is this a fairly accurate definition/description of the VP technique? Bill, is it an accurate description of your trigger stroke technique?)

OBTW: Great Thread, People! Lots of good discussion and ideas!

Steve

Steve Swartz as Guest wrote:(p.s. Bill, the way you describe your trigger stroke sounds an awful lot like the "variable pressure" technique espoused by some european organizations in the 1970s. VP involves increasing trigger pressure when the sight picture is improving, and holding [or even relaxing presure slightly] when the sight picture is deteriorating. David, is this a fairly accurate definition/description of the VP technique? Bill, is it an accurate description of your trigger stroke technique?)

Can't help with that one I'm afraid Steve. I don't remember hearing that as suggested technique, but then I didn't start shooting until 1980. If someone had suggested it I think I would have filed it in the "listen politely, say thank you and then forget it" drawer. I did that a lot with one Chief National Coach we had ;-)

I have always tried to use the same trigger technique: be positive and gradually increase the pressure. Only stop when either the shot goes or a stray thought enters the brain (such as "it must go soon").

Steve Swartz as Guest wrote:Bill, the way you describe your trigger stroke sounds an awful lot like the "variable pressure" technique espoused by some european organizations in the 1970s. VP involves increasing trigger pressure when the sight picture is improving, and holding [or even relaxing presure slightly] when the sight picture is deteriorating.

Steve,

You are quite incorrect about Bill's descriptions:

"with the trigger finger moving steadily my total concentration and eye focus is on the front sight and dealing with the problem of perfecting sight allignment before the gun fires."

"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."

"One of my shooting friends once said that concentrating on sight allignment was just busy work to keep fron thinking about the trigger application of pressure.and the firing of the shot.I like to think that concentation contributes to the perfection of alligned sights,"

Those were some recent quotes; he's consistently said the same thing many other times.

FredB

Steve
thanks for the rapid/consistent follow up..

"A smooth, straight-to-the-rear trigger squeeze that is also rapid is more consistent and more predicatable than an equally smooth, equally consistent, equally straight-to-the-rear slower squeeze."

I get it.

However it raises another question though this time more related to timing.

If my air pistol has a rollover trigger and I use a "smooth, straight-to-the-rear trigger squeeze that is also rapid" with a subconscious trigger initiation the trigger breaks and the shot is fired. No problem.

But what if you have a 2 stage trigger. When does the subconscious trigger initiation commence? Is it at the beginning of the first stage - if so what is the point of having 2 stages if there is no pause in the "straight to the rear trigger squeeze"?

Or is the first stage taken up during the settling into the aiming area and the "serious" trigger initiation commences at the second stage?

Tony:

This is probably more a matter of personal preference- I think one popular method involves pressing through the first stage to the second stage "step." Use this amount pf pressure during the settle to stabilize the sights. All it takes at that point is the small amount of additional pressure to release the shot.

I have heard of other methods, but this one seems to work well for a lot of folks (including me).

Steve

Steve, you continue to set up "Straw Man" issues to try and make your point. Ive had said most consistantly that I rely on totally on a steadily increasing pressure on the trigger to cause the pistol to fire and I dont care when that happens so long as eye focus and mental effort is totally envolved in perfecting sight allignment when the pistol fires. Most of our posters seem to understand what I am posting and you are far to versed in our sport to misunderstand with out making a deliberate effort to do so. This seems to me to be an intellectually dishonest approach to this discussion and I dont want to continue a discussion at this level. I may be totally wrong with how I deliver a good shot, But that is how I do our thing and no ammount of variant comments will change a thing.[ Except suggestions about a better way to control my performance.] Good Shooting Bill Horton

2650 Plus wrote:Steve, you continue to set up "Straw Man" issues to try and make your point. Ive had said most consistantly that I rely on totally on a steadily increasing pressure on the trigger to cause the pistol to fire and I dont care when that happens so long as eye focus and mental effort is totally envolved in perfecting sight allignment when the pistol fires. Most of our posters seem to understand what I am posting and you are far to versed in our sport to misunderstand with out making a deliberate effort to do so. This seems to me to be an intellectually dishonest approach to this discussion and I dont want to continue a discussion at this level. I may be totally wrong with how I deliver a good shot, But that is how I do our thing and no ammount of variant comments will change a thing.[ Except suggestions about a better way to control my performance.] Good Shooting Bill Horton

Absolutely this is the key: "so long as eye focus and mental effort is [are] totally involved in perfecting sight alignment when the pistol fires" . [spelling corrected]

Good thing Bill uses the word "when" the pistol fires. The word "while" would work too. And it is imperative to follow through with the sighting effort, meaning "after" the pistol fires. The sighting effort is interrupted by the recoil only. Of course if we are in a sustained fire mode, the effort blends with a recovery.