Raise or lower pistol to hold point?

[crosshairs]

I've done both methods, although for some reason I seem to favour the raising to target method. My investigations into the 2 methods raised other questions, I thought I might share it with you lovely, lovely people.

You know, when you raise your arm, there are some of use who feels the "torque" acting through out shoulderjoints right down to maybe even the shouderblades, and there are the others I call the "free floaters". By "free floating", I would describe it as less conscious use of shoulder (or back) muscle and more of a "raising ones arm to point somewhere" kind of feel.

Lets call them Cantilever method and freefloater method respectively.

In cantilever method, I favour the raise above target and settling down method of aiming. It gives the shooter the sensation of the arm locking itself in place for a good and stable trigger to the release of te shot. Incidentally, due to the nature of this combination of methods, there are more joint contacts, hence the shot is affected by one's breathing. I use inhalation to raise the sights occassionally to get the shots in. Plus point is the consistency of the shots, minus point, it is more tie consuming, and more strenuous.

In the freefloating method, most joints are loose, including the elbow. I find raising the sights to the target a hassle-free and fast method of target acquisition. Due to the loose nature of this type of aiming, it is very prone to minute trembling of the hand and arm forearm muscle, and any effort trying to keep the sights still is almost always futile, and I had to adopt the "everything is in a motion" attitude while taking the shot. It feels somewhat like trying to gradually push the pistol into the target, while continually increasing the squeeze on the trigger just so that the trembling does not set it. This method is executed in a single motion. The plus point is that it shoots very fast.

[crosshairs]

Is there a right and wrong way of doing it?

[Steve Swartz]

Yes.

Whichever way allows you to achieve a high level of attentive focus on the front sight, perfect/perfecting sight alignment, and a smooth, settled "wobble" in your aiming area, in order of priority:

1) At the highest level of quality (using characteristics listed above); and
2) As quickly as possible

Achieving a crappy "steady state" of focus, align, settle quickly does you know good. If it take syou too long to settle, you'll never get a high quality level of focus, align, settle.

The *most* *important* *thing* for any tgechnique issue is to know exactly and precisely what criteria constitutes "good" vs. "bad."

It ain't as easy as you might think!

Steve Swartz

(for example, which is the better "settle?" A rapidly jerking unpredictable movement that spends 100% of time inside the 8 ring, 80% inside the 9 ring, and 30% inside the ten ring? Or a smooth, gentle, predictable movement that spends 100% inside the 7 ring, 90% inside the 8 ring, 65% inside the 9 ring, and 20% isnide the 10 ring? You might be amazed at the number of people who sincerely believe the tighter, jerkier hold is "better-" just because it's "tighter!")

[Richard H]

It doesn't matter what the hold is as long as the trigger breaks at the right point. The jerkier one would give you more points if the shots were fired at random, but in shooting the shots are not fired at random. As long as you know were the settle is and when to break the trigger it doesn't matter if you spend 30% or 10% of your time in the ten ring the shot should always land in the ten ring.

[jackh]

Yes.

Whichever way allows you to achieve a high level of attentive focus on the front sight, perfect/perfecting sight alignment, and a smooth, settled "wobble" in your aiming area, in order of priority:

1) At the highest level of quality (using characteristics listed above); and
2) As quickly as possible

............

Now there is a goal. Too many times we read of a means to a goal, but often fail to define the goal. Therefore understanding is lacking.

Rt on Steve