TargetTalk

First, a short story. Col Charles Askins once published a story about a reporter and Huelet "Joe " Benner. The tale was based on an incident that occured just after Joe returned from Australia and the olympics. Joe was on a range training for the matches at Camp Perry and a reporter was observing. Joe would shoot a shot from his colt match woodsman and say low ten at five. The reporter would confirm the shot location using Joes scope. Joe would fire again and say ten left and the reporter would again confirm the shot location. Suddenly the reporter had a revelation. He had discovered the secret of Joes success. According to the piece filed by the reporter Joe had eyes like an eagle. Why he could see 22 holes from fifty yards away. How do you call your shots and how accurate are your calls / Good shooting Bill Horton

2650 Plus wrote:How do you call your shots and how accurate are your calls

How? Simply by watching the sights during the shot release.

Accuracy? I used to be able to call within half a ring and almost perfect direction at 25m for ISSF Standard and CentreFire Pistol. I'm now lucky to be able to say whether I've hit the target (OK, maybe a bit better than that).

A step further, if you can't call the shot, you are not visually aware of your sight alignment and sight picture. An inability to call the shot, I believe is an indicator of a lapse in visual and mental concentration of sight alignment/picture, assuming trigger control is good. I use my spotting scope to basically confirm what I already know. Inability to call the shot tells you to go back to the fundamentals.
Gort

When every thing is under best control I find myself looking through the shot hole and nowhere else on each shot. On bad days it aint so precise. That confidence in the shot call is the primary basis for moving the sight if shots are off call. Looking at and consentrating on the sights is as you have mentioned, critical for accurately calling shots. any break in concentration degrades the perfection of the shot call,ie eye focus slipping toward the target or any thought about the trigger finger and pulling the trigger. And that aint all thats degraded. Usually the shot is a disaster as well. How do I use my eyes to observe the sights? What little I know about the eyes led me to the idea that involentary movements of the eye coinsided with something very much like an electrical signal to the brain and that signal,interped by the brain became our vision and lasted until the next signal was sent. A strained eye sends fewer signaly and our vison is degraded. I came to believe that by causing my eye to jump around on the front sight the signals to the brain would be increased as I would be avoiding the stare problem. There are others that say something else is going on but as far as i know none are shooters. There is another thread in which the poster expressed the idea that one should focus on a small spot exactly in the middle of the front sight. Take your choice and score the target. Then you will know Good SHooting Bill Horton

What say you when you see and call the difference in your sight alignment vs the aim area position?

Sometimes I see (example) the aligned sight at 8 oclock on the 8 ring at break and that is exactly where the shot appears. Other times I see a dip, raise, or side displacement in the alignment. There too I can often call the shot but not as exact in distance out as in the first example.

jackh wrote:Sometimes I see (example) the aligned sight at 8 oclock on the 8 ring at break and that is exactly where the shot appears. Other times I see a dip, raise, or side displacement in the alignment. There too I can often call the shot but not as exact in distance out as in the first example.

It sounds like in the first example you are watching the sights correctly and have a good technique but unfortunately the gun has drifted away from your normal aiming area. It happens to a greater or lesser extent with every shooter. It was what I would call a "perfect eight". That's where you could see the sights pointing and the rest of your technique didn't disturb the mis-aiming.

In the second example your technique has obviously gone haywire (slightly) reducing your ability to acurately call the shot. It would take a lot of experience in calling bad shots or a computer like brain to accurately calculate where a bad shot has gone.

It seems to me that it is a bit difficult to call the shot 'properly' using modern AP pistols with those compensators (Steyr, Fwb). Am I alone here?
I think I get informations about the direction of shot via the (eventual)movement of the wrist (during/after the shot) and via the movement of the barrel (during/after the shot).

scerir wrote:It seems to me that it is a bit difficult to call the shot 'properly' using modern AP pistols with those compensators (Steyr, Fwb). Am I alone here?

Nestruev said about absorber (not compensator):
http://www.pilkguns.com/intmn.shtml

"What do you think about the recoil absorbers that the P34 and the LP10 has as compared to say a P30 or an LP1?
I am not able to feel the shot absolutely, no movement at all. I just hear the ping and next I see the hit on the target and no feeling.

Do you think the LP10 or the P34 with no movement is better to shoot than the unstabilized guns?
Absorbers and stabilizing systems are good for shooting but I have my own special kind of thinking. I change the movement from the absorbers in the Steyr. I can do this as a gunsmith, and also in the free pistol I want to have a small, very small recoil. Absolutely no recoil I am thinking is not so good and the reason is if I have a small, a very small recoil, but it must be the same from shot to shot, but I like to see the point I am shooting. That one moment when I have a very, very small jump from the barrel so I can see that point, that moment, when leaving the bullet from the barrel. So I know but it must be from shot to shot the same, and I have made a change from the position of the absorber, but it must be the absorber, not the compensator. In that case it maybe is not so good. It has an influence in the groups. I like to have a good result and I have good training, so I can shoot good, very good with any kind of pistol, it doesn't matter. But in bad days or not so good days, it is important to know (when the shot breaks). In the competition today, I have only made two good tens 10.8 and 10.7. By this I mean, every other ten was 10.2, 10.3 and so only two really good tens, but they were tens. So that means I was really not so good but never the less I can hit the ten, even by shooting this way I can win even on a day when I'm not so good. I am always thinking to hit the center of the ten for each shoot, center of the ten, center of the ten, each shot and I am always waiting when does it come, that shot, the center of the ten."

scerir wrote:It seems to me that it is a bit difficult to call the shot 'properly' using modern AP pistols with those compensators (Steyr, Fwb). Am I alone here?
I think I get informations about the direction of shot via the (eventual)movement of the wrist (during/after the shot) and via the movement of the barrel (during/after the shot).

I don't follow that. Surely the direction of the sights gives you the information you require and the noise / feel of the shot breaking gives you the time reference. I find it far easier to call shots in air than free or other pistol disciplnes. That could however be slightly swayed by the fact that I shoot air the majority of the time.

Rob.

LukeP wrote: Nestruev said about absorber (not compensator):

Thanks LukeP. Yes, I wrote 'compensator' but I really meant 'absorber'. It seems that the less the pistol moves, the less you can call a shot :-)
s.

RobStubbs wrote: I don't follow that. Surely the direction of the sights gives you the information you require and the noise / feel of the shot breaking gives you the time reference.

Yes. But isn't here another mystery? Sometimes (or often) from the movement of the signts, of the barrel, of the wrist, from the noise, or from whatever else, we are able to call the shot ... very badly. I mean that we are sure it was a 9.2 down-left. It was (say) a 10.9 instead. Now, how does it happen? Another conscious vs. subconscious thread?
s.

[Would Cesare Morini be so kind to sell a 'subconscious' pistol?]

scerir wrote:

RobStubbs wrote: I don't follow that. Surely the direction of the sights gives you the information you require and the noise / feel of the shot breaking gives you the time reference.

Yes. But isn't here another mystery? Sometimes (or often) from the movement of the signts, of the barrel, of the wrist, from the noise, or from whatever else, we are able to call the shot ... very badly. I mean that we are sure it was a 9.2 down-left. It was (say) a 10.9 instead. Now, how does it happen? Another conscious vs. subconscious thread?

Isn't that the whole reason behind shot calling. If you are calling the shot correctly then you probably aren't doing too much wrong.

If you cannot call the shot corectly then there is probably an error or inconsistancy in your technique.

Using your example of calling a low-left 9.2 but scoring a 10.9 does not mean that it was a good shot, it means that it was a lucky shot.

Larry and All:

My $0.02 would be that if our sights are perfectly alinged, and we are focusing physically on the front sight/mentally on maintaining alignment, it is easy to call the shot because the gun was pointed where we see the front sight pointed. Assuming perfect trigger control.

If, on the other hand:

- our trigger control is imperfect (slinging the shot away from where the front sight/aligned sights are pointed); or if
- the sights are not precisely aligned (our eye can't read a 3-dimensional fix the way it can read a two dimensional fix . . . if the sights are aligned, we can tell where the gun was pointed just by looking at the front sight. If the sighgts aren't aligned, then our eye has to read the misalignment, read the position of front sight-target; combine the alignment and aim information, and then extrapololate the error out about ten meters.)

then the shot will fall off call.

So calling your shots is a pretty good indicator of proper technique. At least for trigger control, alignment, and mental/physical focus.

Steve Swartz

What steve said. plus the accurate call is essential to the problem of making correct adjustments to your sights. Good Shooting Bill Horton

Steve,

I would suggest that there are two parts to 'calling the shot', based on:
- the sight picture (position and alignment) as the shot is fired, and
- the sight picture at the completion of the recoil (position and alignment)

Your last post seems to be on the first of these, however my experience is that the sight alignment and position after recoil is more indicative of where the shot will be in relation to the group.

Spencer

Spencer:

Never heard that before- interesting idea. Not sure if I understand what you mean by "sight picture at the completion of the recoil." Do you really mean where the gun is pointed after the projectile clears the muzzle, and before recovery? Or after recovery?

Not sure how that contributes to calling the shot- please elaborate?

Steve Swartz

Personal experience in small bore rifle leads me to confirm the relationship of the hit on the target to the recoil and recovery position of the rifle. I've never associated this with pistols, with one exception. My free pistol calls also seemed to relate to directioin of recoil and location of recovery. I expect most 3P shooters would confirm your experience as common in that discipline. Another post mentioned the apparent difficulty in calling shots when shooting the non recoiling air pistols, an occurance I have yet to witness so, while fasinating ,I have no basis on which to make a connent. Thank you all for your input in developing this post,.Good Shooting Bill Horton