It is a quite common belief that the subconscious should be used as a recorder/playback device in shooting.
One technique I've heartily supported was to make your trigger operation as perfectly consistent as possible, and then allow your subconscious to observe your hold pattern and initiate the trigger such that the firing coincides with the unfolding hold pattern, with just the right timing to produce a ten. The concept is that the subconscious can determine, through pattern recognition, when to initiate the trigger to cause everything to unfold correctly and complete at a subconsciously known interval in the future.
Another technique I've also suggested involves training for the same consistency in trigger operation and then starting the trigger consciously. From there you let the subconscious move the sights into alignment at the break.
The latter method works great in reducing chicken finger and is especially useful in sustained fire events. It also ensures a continuous trigger operation which I firmly believe is more important than any perfect sight picture. If someone doesn't own it, I'd like to coin the phrase, "Trigger trumps sights!"
But what if I were to suggest that both methods above were still limiting. Or, that maybe there is another step to make. Maybe instead of recording a routine through "thousands of repetitions" we should let the subconscious loose. Is it better to memorize a table or understand its data? Is 2 x 2 equal to 4 because we memorized it that way, or because we understand the concept of numbers? One idea limits us - the other frees us to explore.
Let's take a closer look. In the above examples, aren't we really still trying to control the shooting consciously? Aren't we really saying, "OK, subconscious, I have everything figured out for you. As long as you do what I taught you we'll be fine."? In the first paragraph above we set everything up and then tell the subconscious to pay attention to the hold and when things look correct, go ahead and complete the shot. In the second example, we start the shot and then tell the subconscious to make it correct.
Is this how we handle the most natural events in our lives?
What about eating? Let's get right down to the chewing of food. We don't tell our subconscious that the teeth will come together at this moment (and in this way) - make sure the tongue pushes something just right against the cheek so the food is chewed but not the tongue or cheek. Even the placing of stuff in our mouths has become familiar enough to do it without thinking about it. Do we hold our head exactly a certain way and bring in a fork consciously calculating everything so that we don't jab our lip? Nope! We stab something on our plate and the operation becomes automatic. Everything is taken care of for us while we consciously decide what we want to attack next. Often, this is all done while we carry on a conversation.
What would it take to make shooting just as natural as eating?
For one thing, we would have to move all the activity into the subconscious. We wouldn't be able to consciously perform anything, not even the initiation. Let's examine such a shot. Consciously, we decide to shoot a ten. Then we load, raise and fire. If we have turned everything over to our subconscious early enough, the gun will bear on the bull and the shot will fire. No hesitation to check or judge anything. No figuring out if we're really ready. No aborts due to something not looking right. In fact, all corrections would be made on the fly to perform a well placed shot. In the most casual (note confident) way we have told ourselves to fire a shot and everything took care of itself. Doesn't this sound like the most natural way to shoot? Don't confuse this with just firing randomly. In the above scenario you still use all your senses, but the conscious filters are turned off and the subconscious uses all the senses to perform the shot. In fact, all the operation is under direct subconscious study and control.
I know, you're wondering how to guarantee it's a ten, and how do you get to that fully subconscious mode, anyway?
A couple of things are important. First, you have to have full confidence in your subconscious being able to perform everything on its own. Second, you would need to tell your subconscious what you wanted. Let's address this second issue briefly. How do we tell our subconscious what we desire? Visualization and thought focus. We do it all the time. Advertisers even help us decide what we want by giving us images to focus on. As soon as we focus on what we want, the subconscious helps guide us to the destination. Of course, we are sometimes guided to what we don’t want by the same focus - “I hope I don’t shoot a seven... I knew it!”
What about the confidence issue? That's a tough one. Since our ego is on the line and we want perfection, it's hard for us to give the leeway needed for our subconscious to fully explore what's necessary to fire a ten. Let's face it - if we offer full authority to our subconscious to fire a shot, and it isn't a ten, we yank that authority right away and decide it doesn't work. But, how does the subconscious know what does and doesn't work without exploring everything along the way? Our problem becomes allowing ourselves the opportunity to discover new areas that can't be reached without letting go of what we have. Think about it - how often have you not wanted to try a different finger placement because you don't want to lose the 95% you're now achieving occasionally?
Perhaps the descriptions at the beginning are only steps along the path to truly subconscious shooting. Maybe they’re small pieces of it. I think that either description can possibly be expanded some, but can we really let go of all conscious control and make shooting truly natural? Can shooting tens become as familiar as walking?
All comments welcomed...
Take Care,
Ed Hall
http://www.airforceshooting.org/
http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/
Totally Subconscious Shooting?? (Long)
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
Hi Ed
First off, are you approaching this knowing that 100% subconscious shots are where we want to be? Has it been established so?
Second, do these ideas apply equally across the realm from AP, FP, to Hardball rapid?
The closest thing to totally subconscious shooting I have ever experienced are those all too rare perfectly flowing T&R strings. But even then a piece of my mind is counting 1-2-3-4-5. So not totally sub-c in my opinion.
The best slowfiring I ever experienced (years ago) is where I was very conscious of seeing the front sight and that it was aligned with the rear, and that my triggering was not going to disrupt that feeling of control of the sight. This sounds more like you first scenario.
I presently subscribe to the latter scenario you listed, where sights follow trigger. That, by the way, is my understanding of what a very tallented Marine was telling me about. One reason for my sights following my trigger is I am not as seeing and physically able as I was 30 years ago.
I have said you get more milage out of good triggering than even sighting. Good sighting will make good triggering even better. But I am not sure the same can be applied universally to AP>>>>HB.
Add that "instinctive" shots might be subconscious. I recall my second malfunction in some timed fire problems with the 208s (weak hammer spring). I had another magazine ready out of habit not knowing I would ever need it within string. Anyway on two occasions I dropped the partially shot magazine and inserted the next one. Then succeeded in racking the slide and getting off the remaining number of shots on target in the black and on time. (I think this event started the discussion on rules for additional loading). The whole procedure was either instinctive or subconscious. I do not know which is the better term. But I did see that the hasty shots were very much done automatically. They were not bad shots. But despite being sub-c or whatever, they were using all the black that was there. In other words, that instinctive shooting was a downgrade from my more controlled strings. I believe there has to be at least one process point to be in control of when shooting. Otherwise you will bite your cheek.
Jack H
First off, are you approaching this knowing that 100% subconscious shots are where we want to be? Has it been established so?
Second, do these ideas apply equally across the realm from AP, FP, to Hardball rapid?
The closest thing to totally subconscious shooting I have ever experienced are those all too rare perfectly flowing T&R strings. But even then a piece of my mind is counting 1-2-3-4-5. So not totally sub-c in my opinion.
The best slowfiring I ever experienced (years ago) is where I was very conscious of seeing the front sight and that it was aligned with the rear, and that my triggering was not going to disrupt that feeling of control of the sight. This sounds more like you first scenario.
I presently subscribe to the latter scenario you listed, where sights follow trigger. That, by the way, is my understanding of what a very tallented Marine was telling me about. One reason for my sights following my trigger is I am not as seeing and physically able as I was 30 years ago.
I have said you get more milage out of good triggering than even sighting. Good sighting will make good triggering even better. But I am not sure the same can be applied universally to AP>>>>HB.
Add that "instinctive" shots might be subconscious. I recall my second malfunction in some timed fire problems with the 208s (weak hammer spring). I had another magazine ready out of habit not knowing I would ever need it within string. Anyway on two occasions I dropped the partially shot magazine and inserted the next one. Then succeeded in racking the slide and getting off the remaining number of shots on target in the black and on time. (I think this event started the discussion on rules for additional loading). The whole procedure was either instinctive or subconscious. I do not know which is the better term. But I did see that the hasty shots were very much done automatically. They were not bad shots. But despite being sub-c or whatever, they were using all the black that was there. In other words, that instinctive shooting was a downgrade from my more controlled strings. I believe there has to be at least one process point to be in control of when shooting. Otherwise you will bite your cheek.
Jack H
-
Steve Swartz
Ed:
I. "It is a quite common belief that the subconscious should be used as a recorder/playback device in shooting."
I disagree wholeheartedly.
II. "One technique I've heartily supported was to make your trigger operation as perfectly consistent as possible, and then allow your subconscious to observe your hold pattern and initiate the trigger such that the firing coincides with the unfolding hold pattern, with just the right timing to produce a ten. The concept is that the subconscious can determine, through pattern recognition, when to initiate the trigger to cause everything to unfold correctly and complete at a subconsciously known interval in the future."
I agree 100%.
Here's the problem: there is, in my mind, a "ginormous" semantic (at least) and quite practical (worst case scenario) difference, between the first thing you said and the second thing you said.
I. suggests some kind of *passive* role for the subconscious- "recorder/playback device" indeed! Not at all. The conscious mind (if anything) is in the passive role as recorder/playback device.
II. sounds a lot closer to the truth of it all. We are conditioning (or programming, if you will) our conscious/subconscious/physical system (through repetition and FOCUSED INTENSITY) to perform the role of the "lead computing gyro" in determining when to send the signal (accounting for delay) to break the shot. Simultaneously, we are anticipating the shot release and perhaps- I grant you this- "steering" the sights as the pressure increases. ("Anticipating" is more dominant for obvious reasons in slow fire; "steering" is more dominant for likewise obvious reasons in rapid fire).
O.K., so it's "six of one, half dozen of the other." Anticipating, steering, whatever.
Is it perfect?
NO!
The only way this technique (with either steering or anticipating perspective) would work 100% of the time is IF both
1) the wobble pattern were completely predictable; and
2) the pressure/shot break response were completely predictable.
Neither 1) nor 2) is actually true when it gets right down to it.
So, instead, we should . . . ???
Steve
I. "It is a quite common belief that the subconscious should be used as a recorder/playback device in shooting."
I disagree wholeheartedly.
II. "One technique I've heartily supported was to make your trigger operation as perfectly consistent as possible, and then allow your subconscious to observe your hold pattern and initiate the trigger such that the firing coincides with the unfolding hold pattern, with just the right timing to produce a ten. The concept is that the subconscious can determine, through pattern recognition, when to initiate the trigger to cause everything to unfold correctly and complete at a subconsciously known interval in the future."
I agree 100%.
Here's the problem: there is, in my mind, a "ginormous" semantic (at least) and quite practical (worst case scenario) difference, between the first thing you said and the second thing you said.
I. suggests some kind of *passive* role for the subconscious- "recorder/playback device" indeed! Not at all. The conscious mind (if anything) is in the passive role as recorder/playback device.
II. sounds a lot closer to the truth of it all. We are conditioning (or programming, if you will) our conscious/subconscious/physical system (through repetition and FOCUSED INTENSITY) to perform the role of the "lead computing gyro" in determining when to send the signal (accounting for delay) to break the shot. Simultaneously, we are anticipating the shot release and perhaps- I grant you this- "steering" the sights as the pressure increases. ("Anticipating" is more dominant for obvious reasons in slow fire; "steering" is more dominant for likewise obvious reasons in rapid fire).
O.K., so it's "six of one, half dozen of the other." Anticipating, steering, whatever.
Is it perfect?
NO!
The only way this technique (with either steering or anticipating perspective) would work 100% of the time is IF both
1) the wobble pattern were completely predictable; and
2) the pressure/shot break response were completely predictable.
Neither 1) nor 2) is actually true when it gets right down to it.
So, instead, we should . . . ???
Steve
a new word needed?
could it be that the words 'subconscious', 'autonomous', 'automatic', etc. when applied to triggering all carry enough baggage that each of us gets confused by our previous concepts?
is a new word needed to define what we (as coaches) are trying to inpart?
Re Steve's "The only way this technique (with either steering or anticipating perspective) would work 100% of the time is IF both
1) the wobble pattern were completely predictable; and
2) the pressure/shot break response were completely predictable.
Neither 1) nor 2) is actually true when it gets right down to it.
So, instead, we should . . . ??? "
It is BECAUSE the wobble pattern is not completely predictable, and the pressure/shot break response is not completely predictable that we teach/impart Area Aim and Progressive Trigger Pressure and Follow Through.
Spencer
is a new word needed to define what we (as coaches) are trying to inpart?
Re Steve's "The only way this technique (with either steering or anticipating perspective) would work 100% of the time is IF both
1) the wobble pattern were completely predictable; and
2) the pressure/shot break response were completely predictable.
Neither 1) nor 2) is actually true when it gets right down to it.
So, instead, we should . . . ??? "
It is BECAUSE the wobble pattern is not completely predictable, and the pressure/shot break response is not completely predictable that we teach/impart Area Aim and Progressive Trigger Pressure and Follow Through.
Spencer
-
Ed Hall
Thanks for the responses. Of course, if I had all the answers, I'd have won the Nationals instead of just doing well compared to prior years.<smile>
But in my studying, I am forming new thoughts (actually based on older ones) which I have brought out in my previous post. To further those thoughts, consider the following:
Where is the first place the sights go if you point them at the target or settle into your aiming area?
I would suggest that the aligned sights hit the center of the aiming area and then start the hold pattern from there. IOW, when you start out from the bench, the sights come into alignment as they are moved to the center of the aiming area and then wobble about over that area. We stop directional movement at the time we enter the area of aim. I would further suggest that that moment when we stop directional movement to replace it with trying to hold still is at the center of our area of aim. Even if not dead center, it is well within the area. What would result from our shot happening then?
Is this what sustained fire shooters describe when they say, "All I saw was the gun returning to the center of the black and firing. It all seemed automatic."?
Is this possibly the point Don Nygord referred to when he said you should shoot the first ten you see? Is it not the first time everything is aligned in our aiming area? What keeps us from firing at this first point? The belief that we can make it better? Or is it the fact that our conscious hasn't had a chance to judge anything yet? If our conscious hasn't evaluated everything, how can it turn control over to the subconscious?
Some of my 10x targets (possibly all my Rapid Fire ones) have happened when I was distracted and didn't have the time to consciously be involved. (For non-Bullseye shooters, in BE pistol most of the targets have a center ten labeled as an x-ring, which we include in our score for purposes of breaking ties. 100-10x is a perfect target score.)
OK, back to our holding pattern over the aiming area. The pattern is only slightly predictable. But, if we fire within it and our hold is the size of the nine ring, odds are that the shot will be a ten since the nine ring is on the extremity. If we were to fire at the moment we changed from coming into the area to holding in the area, where would the hole appear? At first, you may tend to think it would depend on how pure the transition occurred. But I would suggest that with training the shot could happen at precisely the correct time for a ten, if the subconscious was totally in charge.
If the above is true, would this not take the unpredictability of the hold and the unpredictability of the trigger operation out of the picture and replace them with a very predictable, repeatable and deliberate action? Or, at least one as close as the randomness of what we now do?
I’ll await further discussion, for now...
All comments welcome...
Take Care,
Ed Hall
http://www.airforceshooting.org/
http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/
But in my studying, I am forming new thoughts (actually based on older ones) which I have brought out in my previous post. To further those thoughts, consider the following:
Where is the first place the sights go if you point them at the target or settle into your aiming area?
I would suggest that the aligned sights hit the center of the aiming area and then start the hold pattern from there. IOW, when you start out from the bench, the sights come into alignment as they are moved to the center of the aiming area and then wobble about over that area. We stop directional movement at the time we enter the area of aim. I would further suggest that that moment when we stop directional movement to replace it with trying to hold still is at the center of our area of aim. Even if not dead center, it is well within the area. What would result from our shot happening then?
Is this what sustained fire shooters describe when they say, "All I saw was the gun returning to the center of the black and firing. It all seemed automatic."?
Is this possibly the point Don Nygord referred to when he said you should shoot the first ten you see? Is it not the first time everything is aligned in our aiming area? What keeps us from firing at this first point? The belief that we can make it better? Or is it the fact that our conscious hasn't had a chance to judge anything yet? If our conscious hasn't evaluated everything, how can it turn control over to the subconscious?
Some of my 10x targets (possibly all my Rapid Fire ones) have happened when I was distracted and didn't have the time to consciously be involved. (For non-Bullseye shooters, in BE pistol most of the targets have a center ten labeled as an x-ring, which we include in our score for purposes of breaking ties. 100-10x is a perfect target score.)
OK, back to our holding pattern over the aiming area. The pattern is only slightly predictable. But, if we fire within it and our hold is the size of the nine ring, odds are that the shot will be a ten since the nine ring is on the extremity. If we were to fire at the moment we changed from coming into the area to holding in the area, where would the hole appear? At first, you may tend to think it would depend on how pure the transition occurred. But I would suggest that with training the shot could happen at precisely the correct time for a ten, if the subconscious was totally in charge.
If the above is true, would this not take the unpredictability of the hold and the unpredictability of the trigger operation out of the picture and replace them with a very predictable, repeatable and deliberate action? Or, at least one as close as the randomness of what we now do?
I’ll await further discussion, for now...
All comments welcome...
Take Care,
Ed Hall
http://www.airforceshooting.org/
http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/
-
Steve Swartz
Ed:
Beginning to sound an awful lot like the "sweep and shoot" method whereby you swign the sights into the aiming area and break the shot at the right moment as the muzzle traverses the "sweet spot."
Therein lies madness . . . . !*
=8^)
Steve Swartz
*Seems to work for international rapid fire shooters, right? Seems to work for BE rapid fire as well, right? What's the problem with this method- why hasn't it ever seem to "work out" for those world-class air and free pistol shooters who have tried it? I honestly don't know for sure why it doesn't seem to work, especially since I haven't really ever used it myself. Partly because I think a statement you made above is eminenlty challengeable (or at least an implied assumption underlying the statement is).
Consider- no matter how you approach the aiming area, there will always be a "first time you hit the sweet spot." You can get your "initial settle" anywhere, and then migrate over to the sweet spot. There will always be that "first ten" no matter how temporary, shaky, unreliable, etc.
Under what circumstances will the variation in release timing and muzzle tracking be aggravated/magnified? Uncertainty in release/tracking maybe represents 50 ms of variability. Would you rather "eat" that variability
1) with muzzle tracking rapidly across the target face; or
2) with muzzle discursing randomly and relatively slowly inside your settled wobble?
Just from a pure statistical standpoint, you will shoot a whole lot more tens witht eh 50ms of error concentrated uniformly over the ten/tight nine area than traversing the 10 ring in a single direction.
Also- the "first tens" I see are during a period of great hold instability. I'm not sure I would want to "take my chances" on the pre-settled muzzle movement pattern.
Then again, I was never a very accomplished rapid fire shooter . . .
Beginning to sound an awful lot like the "sweep and shoot" method whereby you swign the sights into the aiming area and break the shot at the right moment as the muzzle traverses the "sweet spot."
Therein lies madness . . . . !*
=8^)
Steve Swartz
*Seems to work for international rapid fire shooters, right? Seems to work for BE rapid fire as well, right? What's the problem with this method- why hasn't it ever seem to "work out" for those world-class air and free pistol shooters who have tried it? I honestly don't know for sure why it doesn't seem to work, especially since I haven't really ever used it myself. Partly because I think a statement you made above is eminenlty challengeable (or at least an implied assumption underlying the statement is).
Consider- no matter how you approach the aiming area, there will always be a "first time you hit the sweet spot." You can get your "initial settle" anywhere, and then migrate over to the sweet spot. There will always be that "first ten" no matter how temporary, shaky, unreliable, etc.
Under what circumstances will the variation in release timing and muzzle tracking be aggravated/magnified? Uncertainty in release/tracking maybe represents 50 ms of variability. Would you rather "eat" that variability
1) with muzzle tracking rapidly across the target face; or
2) with muzzle discursing randomly and relatively slowly inside your settled wobble?
Just from a pure statistical standpoint, you will shoot a whole lot more tens witht eh 50ms of error concentrated uniformly over the ten/tight nine area than traversing the 10 ring in a single direction.
Also- the "first tens" I see are during a period of great hold instability. I'm not sure I would want to "take my chances" on the pre-settled muzzle movement pattern.
Then again, I was never a very accomplished rapid fire shooter . . .
Ed,
I think you could try out your hypothosis using scatt or the like. I would however be extremely suprised if it showed anything other than a greater amount of movement and a poorer shot result. Sure rapid fire works but it's a diffirent ball game. How many people shoot precision without over raising just as an example ? In rapid fire you do that and you'll miss the series. It's also fair to say that the 10 ring on a rapid fire target is a heck of a lot bigger than on a precision target.
Rob.
I think you could try out your hypothosis using scatt or the like. I would however be extremely suprised if it showed anything other than a greater amount of movement and a poorer shot result. Sure rapid fire works but it's a diffirent ball game. How many people shoot precision without over raising just as an example ? In rapid fire you do that and you'll miss the series. It's also fair to say that the 10 ring on a rapid fire target is a heck of a lot bigger than on a precision target.
Rob.
What ever works for you , works for you. All i know is that once i've picked up good habits , and practised them , if i then over analyse something , personally i will not shoot well. It's the same with my surfing. I am totally confident in my ability and when i surf , i "just go surfing" and let it flow. If i start thinking too much about doing a particular maneuver , then i'm no longer surfing smoothly ..... i'm not "in the zone" as Tiger Woods calls it.
-
Steve Swartz
Yep I think it is - but hmm what's 'Kinesthetic' ? - without me looking it up ;-)Steve Swartz wrote:Rob:
You're right of course- do you think it's because rapid shooting is more of a "kinesthetic" task?
The subconscious is still in charge in any case, but with RF it's controlling different things?
Steve Swartz
Rob.
-
Steve Swartz
-
Fred Mannis
- Posts: 1298
- Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 8:37 pm
- Location: Delaware
Hi Ed. Thought I would add my two cents to this fascinating discussion.
In trying to think about those times when shooting felt as natural as eating, the only time I felt like that was when I was shooting IPSC and IDPA and PPC. Take a standard drill - three targets, two shots in each, reload, repeat. You know what you have to do. The buzzer goes off, you draw, watch the front sight track toward centermass, the sights align just as arms reach full extension and the gun fires. The next 11 shots happen 'automatically'. Things are happening too quickly to even attempt conscious control. The conscious selects a target to fire at, then gets out of the way.
It seems to me that when things slow down - precision shooting rather than RF - the conscious is more likely to take control of the process.
I don't have any idea on how to apply that technique to my AP/FP shooting.
Fred
In trying to think about those times when shooting felt as natural as eating, the only time I felt like that was when I was shooting IPSC and IDPA and PPC. Take a standard drill - three targets, two shots in each, reload, repeat. You know what you have to do. The buzzer goes off, you draw, watch the front sight track toward centermass, the sights align just as arms reach full extension and the gun fires. The next 11 shots happen 'automatically'. Things are happening too quickly to even attempt conscious control. The conscious selects a target to fire at, then gets out of the way.
It seems to me that when things slow down - precision shooting rather than RF - the conscious is more likely to take control of the process.
I don't have any idea on how to apply that technique to my AP/FP shooting.
Fred
-
Bob Fleming
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 8:25 pm
- Location: Hunt County, Texas
I often experience the fully automatic mode that Ed referred to. The feeling I get from it is wonderful and is one of the biggest reasons I continue to shoot. It is possible to shoot great scores this way in FP and Air, it is MUCH easier to reach when things are happening fast enough that you can’t think about it too much as in RF. Visualization of the instant of a successful shot and not allowing myself to care about the outcome seem to be the most important keys. The visualization tells my mind what to do and not caring about the outcome prevents interference from the decision maker at the wrong moment. Naturally, I actually do care about the outcome and therein lays the conflict that prevents so many from using this mind trick. I simply ignore the possible outcome during the shot. After a while you will learn to trust the sub conscious, lower, automatic or whatever you like to call the instinctive reacting part of your mind and it becomes easy to get the decision maker part of the mind to become an uninvolved observer. The instinctive part of the mind seems to be able to time the alignments and the trigger to come together in the right way and react quickly enough to snatch the ten, something the decision maker is hopelessly too slow for. At least, that is what seems to be going on. If the higher mind gets too interested in it, the process breaks down. I must only watch without judgment.
Bob Fleming
Bob Fleming
-
Ed Hall
Thanks Bob (Fred and all other contributors),
I was beginning to think I must have been way off on my use of English to project my thoughts, and the message received was quite misinterpreted from the one transmitted. After I think about Fred's and Bob’s posts awhile I will probably have some thoughts to discuss. (This message is toward the previous posts and was actually written prior to Fred's and Bob’s posts...)
I am far from advocating the "sweep and shoot" method. I didn't think I had suggested that in any of my text. There is no reason to assume you shouldn't stop in your aiming area as you do now. In fact, you should stop in the aiming area. But, what I am suggesting is more of a pick the gun up, place it on target (this is the movement and stop in the aiming area) and fire, without considering all the judgmental intricacies we add to our hold. Why should it take several seconds to decide it’s OK to fire? To further illustrate using familiar "natural, but learned" motor skills, let's examine how we reach for a glass of liquid to consume. We don't stop, calculate its distance and orientation from us, reach near the glass and then after studying our "hold" in relationship to it, compress our fingers in an oh-so-steady, smoothly decreasing, fashion, ensuring equal digit distance, until we finally touch it. Instead we look over to where it is, reach out and grab it. Sometimes we knock it over, especially when learning - remember those round bottom, weighted glasses for young kids (and some old timers)...
I'm diverging! Back on track, what I'm referring to is a learned response, similar to the glass example, where one picks up the gun and places the sights on aim and operates the trigger without evaluating for perfection. If the confidence in the shot can be taken to the level of the confidence in picking up a glass, how can the shot not be a ten?
Let's use a shooting example to illustrate a method of dynamic shooting. After I suggested this exercise a couple years ago, I heard it had been tried by a top shooter several years prior to that, with some success in training, but not in competition. Perhaps due to the added anxiety? The exercise would develop thusly:
- Train for a deliberate raise taking exactly X milliseconds to reach and stop in the aiming area.
- Train for a deliberate trigger operation that takes Y milliseconds to complete.
- Assuming X is greater than Y (training should be accomplished to make this true), start the raise.
- At X - Y, start the trigger.
The biggest obstacle to this method is the hard fact that it will only work with 100% confidence and a truly consistent raise and triggering. If any doubt arises, it will throw off the timing and coincidence will not be at center.
Now for the catch. I'm not really advocating this method either, because it, too, involves a programmed replay of a rote performance. We have to rely on an X millisecond raise and a Y millisecond trigger. What if we suggest the raise and fire, and let the subconscious decide all the rest?
Maybe the shots take as long as they do because it takes that long to get the conscious to let go. Maybe by the time we settle and fire, the subconscious has taken control of everything, but it needed to correct a lot of stuff...
All comments are welcome...
Take Care,
Ed Hall
http://www.airforceshooting.org/
http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/
I was beginning to think I must have been way off on my use of English to project my thoughts, and the message received was quite misinterpreted from the one transmitted. After I think about Fred's and Bob’s posts awhile I will probably have some thoughts to discuss. (This message is toward the previous posts and was actually written prior to Fred's and Bob’s posts...)
I am far from advocating the "sweep and shoot" method. I didn't think I had suggested that in any of my text. There is no reason to assume you shouldn't stop in your aiming area as you do now. In fact, you should stop in the aiming area. But, what I am suggesting is more of a pick the gun up, place it on target (this is the movement and stop in the aiming area) and fire, without considering all the judgmental intricacies we add to our hold. Why should it take several seconds to decide it’s OK to fire? To further illustrate using familiar "natural, but learned" motor skills, let's examine how we reach for a glass of liquid to consume. We don't stop, calculate its distance and orientation from us, reach near the glass and then after studying our "hold" in relationship to it, compress our fingers in an oh-so-steady, smoothly decreasing, fashion, ensuring equal digit distance, until we finally touch it. Instead we look over to where it is, reach out and grab it. Sometimes we knock it over, especially when learning - remember those round bottom, weighted glasses for young kids (and some old timers)...
I'm diverging! Back on track, what I'm referring to is a learned response, similar to the glass example, where one picks up the gun and places the sights on aim and operates the trigger without evaluating for perfection. If the confidence in the shot can be taken to the level of the confidence in picking up a glass, how can the shot not be a ten?
Let's use a shooting example to illustrate a method of dynamic shooting. After I suggested this exercise a couple years ago, I heard it had been tried by a top shooter several years prior to that, with some success in training, but not in competition. Perhaps due to the added anxiety? The exercise would develop thusly:
- Train for a deliberate raise taking exactly X milliseconds to reach and stop in the aiming area.
- Train for a deliberate trigger operation that takes Y milliseconds to complete.
- Assuming X is greater than Y (training should be accomplished to make this true), start the raise.
- At X - Y, start the trigger.
The biggest obstacle to this method is the hard fact that it will only work with 100% confidence and a truly consistent raise and triggering. If any doubt arises, it will throw off the timing and coincidence will not be at center.
Now for the catch. I'm not really advocating this method either, because it, too, involves a programmed replay of a rote performance. We have to rely on an X millisecond raise and a Y millisecond trigger. What if we suggest the raise and fire, and let the subconscious decide all the rest?
Maybe the shots take as long as they do because it takes that long to get the conscious to let go. Maybe by the time we settle and fire, the subconscious has taken control of everything, but it needed to correct a lot of stuff...
All comments are welcome...
Take Care,
Ed Hall
http://www.airforceshooting.org/
http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/
-
Fred
This may be the most thought-provoking thread ever! Thanks Ed!!!
If what Ed is suggesting is that it is possible to shoot completely instinctively - i.e. without conscious thought/decision-making - and do so very accurately, then I don't see how anyone can disagree. This has been done by legendary speed shooters such as Ed McGivern (sp?), by Zen archers, and by performance-type wing shooters (the ones who hit quarters thrown in the air, or hit many thrown targets in rapid succession).
The question for us duffers (speaking generically for myself, and not dissing anyone else) is how can this be made applicable to us? It would seem that the key to performing any action successfully under pressure (e.g. a match) is complete confidence in one's ability to perform it. However, most of us do not have available time to reach the neccessary level of confidence in a technique that requires an enormous amount of training.
Is it possible to develop an instinctive technique in a limited amount of training time? Are the "standard" non-instinctive techniques that are generally taught to new shooters simply a concession to limited training time? Is our shot plan non-instinctive mostly because "it's always been done that way", or because it's easier to verbalize a specific series of actions, or because no Western teacher would feel right saying "just do it."
There was extended discussion on the Bullseye List a few months ago about Brian Zins' advice to "let the trigger steer the sights." No one was able to explain this in a logical manner, but some people seemed to understand it. Brian was clear that it was not to be taken literally. He also stated that he starts irreversable trigger pressure long before the sights are in the aiming area. Sounds to me like he does what Ed is talking about.
No answers - lots of questions.
FredB
If what Ed is suggesting is that it is possible to shoot completely instinctively - i.e. without conscious thought/decision-making - and do so very accurately, then I don't see how anyone can disagree. This has been done by legendary speed shooters such as Ed McGivern (sp?), by Zen archers, and by performance-type wing shooters (the ones who hit quarters thrown in the air, or hit many thrown targets in rapid succession).
The question for us duffers (speaking generically for myself, and not dissing anyone else) is how can this be made applicable to us? It would seem that the key to performing any action successfully under pressure (e.g. a match) is complete confidence in one's ability to perform it. However, most of us do not have available time to reach the neccessary level of confidence in a technique that requires an enormous amount of training.
Is it possible to develop an instinctive technique in a limited amount of training time? Are the "standard" non-instinctive techniques that are generally taught to new shooters simply a concession to limited training time? Is our shot plan non-instinctive mostly because "it's always been done that way", or because it's easier to verbalize a specific series of actions, or because no Western teacher would feel right saying "just do it."
There was extended discussion on the Bullseye List a few months ago about Brian Zins' advice to "let the trigger steer the sights." No one was able to explain this in a logical manner, but some people seemed to understand it. Brian was clear that it was not to be taken literally. He also stated that he starts irreversable trigger pressure long before the sights are in the aiming area. Sounds to me like he does what Ed is talking about.
No answers - lots of questions.
FredB
Thank you Ed for bringing this up. It is a great discussion and coincides very well with my own progression. When I settle on the target there is a very short, but good sight alignment on the center of the target. It occurs about 1 second after I settle and lasts less than 1 second, before it goes into my normal wobble area. I assume this is what Don Nygord referred top as the first 10. It's been a while since I read the Nygord Notes. Maybe it's time to dust off the files.
My shot process has been to let things settle for a few seconds before starting the trigger pull (the 2nd or 3rd Ten?). But I have hit a plateaue, so I have been thinking about things I could do to break out. One thing I have considered is to initiate the trigger pull as I settle on the target to catch that first ten. It makes sense to me, but I have been afraid to "mess up" my hold and trigger pull.
WRT to earlier posts, I think the wobble area is predictable to subconcious. I have had discussions with several very good shooters who tell me that on some days they can barely hold the black, yet they still shoot mostly 10's. I have seen the same thing in my experience. I have limited time on a Rika, but it is amazing to watch the replay and see the hold wobbling all over the place, but the shot always seems to go off when the dot is in the center of the wobble area. I believe this is the subconcious timing the shot. It happens too often to be a coincidence.
Steve Turner
My shot process has been to let things settle for a few seconds before starting the trigger pull (the 2nd or 3rd Ten?). But I have hit a plateaue, so I have been thinking about things I could do to break out. One thing I have considered is to initiate the trigger pull as I settle on the target to catch that first ten. It makes sense to me, but I have been afraid to "mess up" my hold and trigger pull.
WRT to earlier posts, I think the wobble area is predictable to subconcious. I have had discussions with several very good shooters who tell me that on some days they can barely hold the black, yet they still shoot mostly 10's. I have seen the same thing in my experience. I have limited time on a Rika, but it is amazing to watch the replay and see the hold wobbling all over the place, but the shot always seems to go off when the dot is in the center of the wobble area. I believe this is the subconcious timing the shot. It happens too often to be a coincidence.
Steve Turner
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:44 am
- Location: Bali, Indonesia
I certainly can’t match any of you guys in experience (or performance) nor quality of post material - given that I’m a real rookie at this sport (AP), but I’ve enjoyed this discussion so much, and so many “ideas” have flushed through my mind, I felt compelled to add some of my thoughts – with a little fear that I’m not truly entitled too - as six months into the sport – what would I know? Plus – I have no answers – just more questions.
It’s mainly the discussion on our “natural and learned” motor skills that Ed talks about. The chewing of food, walking or picking up a glass of water are good ones. I’m wondering if we are able to do these because of our confidence. As toddlers we learned to walk by lots of falling over and support (not to fall over) by our parents. Slowly we gained confidence – mainly by not falling over so often. Four steps turned into 10, then 20 and so on. A year later – no-body made comments to us anymore about how well we “walked”. As a 3 year old – it’s expected of us and we’re confident enough to do it. I’m wondering too – if we gain this confidence because there is no “prize” (the 10 or the 600/600) and therefore no mental pressure. It reminds me of the “walk the plank” example – which many of you have probably seen. In brief – put a 12 inch wide plank – 30 foot long on the ground and ask anyone of you to walk down the plank without stepping off the plank. Reward: $50. Now (presuming you succeeded) pick one leg up behind you, and hop down the plank without stepping off it – reward:$200. I bet we get a little nervous – and a little less confident. But not enough to fail. Next, blindfold. For $1000 - walk down the plank without stepping off. We start off – slowly putting one foot in front of the other – “feeling” the way. Maybe a little perspiration, a little nervous? Why? A little pressure to perform? Failure purely means there’s no $1000. Nothing else is at risk!!! Now that you are $1250 richer – confidence is up. One last test. Put the plank across two buildings 75 stories high. For $50,000 – all you have to do is walk across it. No hopping, no blindfold. Take a balancing stick, parachute – anything you want. It’s easy!! Heck you did it blind folded on the ground – so what’s the big deal?? It’s the fear of failure isn’t it? Lack of confidence to do this very simple motor skill of walking – which we’ve been doing “without” thought all of our lives. Now – we have to think about it. Is that the secret? Don’t think about it – just get on the plank and walk across. Don’t think about falling off, don’t think about making a mistake (ultimate death!) – don’t think??? Go into “automatic”??? I don’t know any of the answers.
The only experience I have had myself that I can draw a parallel to (and I’m really hoping I’m not alone here) is the phenomenon I’ve experienced on a few occasions when shooting at a target. I’ve pre visualized the shot process, I’ve rehearsed my self talk, I start the process with self talk in motion and then (for whatever reason) my mind wanders off thinking about something else – but I continue in “automatic” and “pop” – surprise – the shot went off – and a 10. First thing I think is: I didn’t deserve that. Where was I?? What did I allow my mind to do? I’m still bewildered – and without an answer!
Last thing. We refer to “pressure” when we try to perform perfectly. For me, it’s the overwhelming desire to do well, to perform at peak, to be the very best. I expect it – and anything less is unacceptable. It’s all so “conscious”. However, if we are given a reason for not being able to perform at what we class as “perfect” (a 10 every time) – the pressure is released and the “natural and learned” subconscious comes to the fore. My experience? When I started in AP, I did so with an IZH-46M. At the pistol club a competitor told me that moving to a CA pistol, like his (Steyr LP10) should be my next step – and he offered his for me to try – saying “don’t expect to shoot well as the grip is to small for you and it’s “sighted” for my eyes – but at least get the feel of it”. So, I took 10 shots, still using my rehearsed shot procedure, liking the feeling of a lighter gun with super trigger. Most important – I thought about my behaviors and not where the holes where going in the target (a phrase quoted often by Steve S I think). In other words, I had no pressure, if I’d shot all 4’s – so what?? Not my gun. The grip’s too small – the sights are different. Just trying. I allowed my subconscious to rule. Result: 97. WOW – has that given me something to think about for the past few months! I’m still thinking about that one – with no answers yet!!
Apologies – as this has turned out to be a bit of a “ramble” – I too am fascinated at why we can eat, talk, walk, throw, catch in such an instinctive automatic fashion – but hitting the 10 is such a task. Thanks for such a thought provoking post.
John Harvey
It’s mainly the discussion on our “natural and learned” motor skills that Ed talks about. The chewing of food, walking or picking up a glass of water are good ones. I’m wondering if we are able to do these because of our confidence. As toddlers we learned to walk by lots of falling over and support (not to fall over) by our parents. Slowly we gained confidence – mainly by not falling over so often. Four steps turned into 10, then 20 and so on. A year later – no-body made comments to us anymore about how well we “walked”. As a 3 year old – it’s expected of us and we’re confident enough to do it. I’m wondering too – if we gain this confidence because there is no “prize” (the 10 or the 600/600) and therefore no mental pressure. It reminds me of the “walk the plank” example – which many of you have probably seen. In brief – put a 12 inch wide plank – 30 foot long on the ground and ask anyone of you to walk down the plank without stepping off the plank. Reward: $50. Now (presuming you succeeded) pick one leg up behind you, and hop down the plank without stepping off it – reward:$200. I bet we get a little nervous – and a little less confident. But not enough to fail. Next, blindfold. For $1000 - walk down the plank without stepping off. We start off – slowly putting one foot in front of the other – “feeling” the way. Maybe a little perspiration, a little nervous? Why? A little pressure to perform? Failure purely means there’s no $1000. Nothing else is at risk!!! Now that you are $1250 richer – confidence is up. One last test. Put the plank across two buildings 75 stories high. For $50,000 – all you have to do is walk across it. No hopping, no blindfold. Take a balancing stick, parachute – anything you want. It’s easy!! Heck you did it blind folded on the ground – so what’s the big deal?? It’s the fear of failure isn’t it? Lack of confidence to do this very simple motor skill of walking – which we’ve been doing “without” thought all of our lives. Now – we have to think about it. Is that the secret? Don’t think about it – just get on the plank and walk across. Don’t think about falling off, don’t think about making a mistake (ultimate death!) – don’t think??? Go into “automatic”??? I don’t know any of the answers.
The only experience I have had myself that I can draw a parallel to (and I’m really hoping I’m not alone here) is the phenomenon I’ve experienced on a few occasions when shooting at a target. I’ve pre visualized the shot process, I’ve rehearsed my self talk, I start the process with self talk in motion and then (for whatever reason) my mind wanders off thinking about something else – but I continue in “automatic” and “pop” – surprise – the shot went off – and a 10. First thing I think is: I didn’t deserve that. Where was I?? What did I allow my mind to do? I’m still bewildered – and without an answer!
Last thing. We refer to “pressure” when we try to perform perfectly. For me, it’s the overwhelming desire to do well, to perform at peak, to be the very best. I expect it – and anything less is unacceptable. It’s all so “conscious”. However, if we are given a reason for not being able to perform at what we class as “perfect” (a 10 every time) – the pressure is released and the “natural and learned” subconscious comes to the fore. My experience? When I started in AP, I did so with an IZH-46M. At the pistol club a competitor told me that moving to a CA pistol, like his (Steyr LP10) should be my next step – and he offered his for me to try – saying “don’t expect to shoot well as the grip is to small for you and it’s “sighted” for my eyes – but at least get the feel of it”. So, I took 10 shots, still using my rehearsed shot procedure, liking the feeling of a lighter gun with super trigger. Most important – I thought about my behaviors and not where the holes where going in the target (a phrase quoted often by Steve S I think). In other words, I had no pressure, if I’d shot all 4’s – so what?? Not my gun. The grip’s too small – the sights are different. Just trying. I allowed my subconscious to rule. Result: 97. WOW – has that given me something to think about for the past few months! I’m still thinking about that one – with no answers yet!!
Apologies – as this has turned out to be a bit of a “ramble” – I too am fascinated at why we can eat, talk, walk, throw, catch in such an instinctive automatic fashion – but hitting the 10 is such a task. Thanks for such a thought provoking post.
John Harvey
-
Fred Mannis
- Posts: 1298
- Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 8:37 pm
- Location: Delaware
Part of Zins' approach is the use of a rolling trigger. I've often wondered whether a subconscious 'trigger steer the sights approach' works better with a rolling trigger than a crisp trigger. I have found it easier to initiate trigger action sooner on my LP50 than on my LP1. Anyone else have a similar experience?Fred wrote: There was extended discussion on the Bullseye List a few months ago about Brian Zins' advice to "let the trigger steer the sights." No one was able to explain this in a logical manner, but some people seemed to understand it. Brian was clear that it was not to be taken literally. He also stated that he starts irreversable trigger pressure long before the sights are in the aiming area. Sounds to me like he does what Ed is talking about.
FredB
FredM
-
Steve Swartz
Ed:
I'm still struggling to understand exactly what we are trying to discuss here (my fault, not yours). I went back and reread the thread- and that didn't help- but it did lead me to understand better what my own main difficulty was.
We are not talking about "point shooting" ("trained instinctive shooting" a la Ed McGivern and other "trick" shooters)?
We are not talking about "sweep and break" shooting (catch the ten as the aligned sights move across the aiming area a la international rapid fire)?
What then is the difference(s) between what you are saying and the "generally accepted practice" of settle-accept-subconscious release?
Yes, I understand (and have frequently experienced) the perceieved phenomenon of "The Sights Racing The Trigger Into The Aiming Area" as popularly described in bullseye sustained fire. And I understand the perceptual difference between the "sights pushing the trigger" vs. "the trigger pushing the sights" concepts. And yes, a roll trigger (or plunger as in GSP/OSP design) can assist in achieving this "feel."
Is what you are saying (not trying to be too dense here) that we should be able to apply the perception described above to Slow Fire?
Seems like your recent comments posit that the "trigger pushing the sights" model ("trigger will break at Y ms therefore sights must be set by X ms") could be a rational alternative to the settle-accept-subconscious break model.
Yes?
Steve Swartz
(And yes, dittos on the "fascinating topic" comments. Hope all pistol shooters read The Lounge folder.)
I'm still struggling to understand exactly what we are trying to discuss here (my fault, not yours). I went back and reread the thread- and that didn't help- but it did lead me to understand better what my own main difficulty was.
We are not talking about "point shooting" ("trained instinctive shooting" a la Ed McGivern and other "trick" shooters)?
We are not talking about "sweep and break" shooting (catch the ten as the aligned sights move across the aiming area a la international rapid fire)?
What then is the difference(s) between what you are saying and the "generally accepted practice" of settle-accept-subconscious release?
Yes, I understand (and have frequently experienced) the perceieved phenomenon of "The Sights Racing The Trigger Into The Aiming Area" as popularly described in bullseye sustained fire. And I understand the perceptual difference between the "sights pushing the trigger" vs. "the trigger pushing the sights" concepts. And yes, a roll trigger (or plunger as in GSP/OSP design) can assist in achieving this "feel."
Is what you are saying (not trying to be too dense here) that we should be able to apply the perception described above to Slow Fire?
Seems like your recent comments posit that the "trigger pushing the sights" model ("trigger will break at Y ms therefore sights must be set by X ms") could be a rational alternative to the settle-accept-subconscious break model.
Yes?
Steve Swartz
(And yes, dittos on the "fascinating topic" comments. Hope all pistol shooters read The Lounge folder.)
-
Lurker of sorts
semantics: instinct vs intuition
I wonder if the better term for this training of the subconcious would be intuition, rather than instinct. Although the uses of the words overlap a bit, intinct is inherent, while intuition is more a perception that can be developed or trained.
Just an observational nit to pick on a very good thread.
Just an observational nit to pick on a very good thread.