-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
Hill & Weems: The Importance of Proper Form
- Thread starter First Person Safety
- Start date
"Slow down and get your jab in."
Gonna start using this.
Gonna start using this.
Thinking a bit more about the irons->dot discussion, difficulty transitioning from irons to a dot indicates inefficiency in prior use of irons. For example, bringing the gun to eye level and not seeing the dot indicates relying on the sights to align the pistol vs. developing a subconscious index. Looking at the dot instead of the target comes from looking at the front sight instead of the target. Waiting for a stable dot on mid-range targets instead of shooting a streak likely comes from over-confirming with irons. Etc.
I came up during the age of the tactical turtle and had a propensity to push my head forward on the presentation. I know now that results in having the pistol and the eyes moving in separate planes. That was one of the issues that I had to overcome, but as that form is the primary program in my brain, I catch myself doing it when I get tired or I start to run on autopilot.
I know that I am over confirming with the dot.
Shooting drills with an aggressive par time will help break over-confirmation. There's no time to over-confirm when shooting a two-second Blake drill. I'll do similar things with other skills like position entry. Let's say that moving three yards and shooting an Alpha with a stable dot takes 2.5 s. Your time for that drill is now 2 s. Make it happen! Then try cutting the time farther 
There's a maximum points value for a drill but no minimum time.
There's a maximum points value for a drill but no minimum time.
Shooting drills with an aggressive par time will help break over-confirmation. There's no time to over-confirm when shooting a two-second Blake drill. I'll do similar things with other skills like position entry. Let's say that moving three yards and shooting an Alpha with a stable dot takes 2.5 s. Your time for that drill is now 2 s. Make it happen! Then try cutting the time farther
There's a maximum points value for a drill but no minimum time.
I want each shot to be an individual, conscious decision, and that just can't be done much faster than .35 splits. I'm okay with not being anywhere near GM status as I am on the application side of things, and I write that respectfully of the technical skill side.
I caught a few minutes of Seeklander's live video this morning, and he discussed that running irons leads to coming in muzzle high and how that will have the dot out of the window. He discussed the need to bring the gun to the eyeline lever with the target.
That's roughly the number in my head for the limit of reactive shooting. It shows up on something like a 15-yard head box when my grip is dialed in. Transition onto the head box, break the first shot, and if the sights return so that I don't need to clean them up but I'm still verifying that they're good before breaking the second shot, then the split will be roughly 0.35 s.
The average reaction time to a known stimulus is .25 seconds. Reaction time plus movement equals response time. It takes the same amount of time to stop an action that has already started as it does to stop an action that has already been started (think checked swing in baseball or golf).
A shot or two in the side/back may very well have been initiated with the threat facing the shooter, but the shooter couldn't recognize and stop their initiated action to shoot.
I can push and get below .30, but I'm outrunning my headlights at that point.
In another interview, Karl Rehn discussed Stoeger's writings and the notion of making multiple shots off of one sight picture. I haven't read it first hand and won't attempt to relate the thoughts here.
Multiple shots off one sight picture are a given on closer targets. You know from experience how much the sights will move in recoil and roughly where they’ll return. On close targets, I know that the sight will not leave the A-zone at any point in the recoil cycle, so the strategy on them is to see a flash of green fiber in the A-zone then pull the trigger twice as fast as possible. I’m not aiming the second shot on top of what was done for the first, but I am calling it. Splits are going to be around .20 s. Farther out, the sight may leave the A-zone briefly before coming back, so I’ll give the gun a tenth of a second to settle before firing the second shot. There’s no time to clean up the sight picture, as I’ve already committed to pulling the trigger, but again I’m calling the shot. Splits are going to be around .30. These are both forms of predictive shooting using Ben’s terminology. JJ has similar concepts in mind when he talks about attack targets.
You can see this kind of shooting in first video here, it’s from a match on Sunday: https://www.instagram.com/p/CQ6sKLhLPVa/
The first array is full send: look at a spot on the four targets in turn and smash the trigger twice when the green flash of the front sight gets there. The second, I’m moving and giving the sights a little time to settle. Third array, there’s not much A-zone above the no-shoot, and the gun is jumping up to the neck in recoil, so I’m giving it a little time to come back down. Better grip would let me shoot faster here.
Feeling in control shooting like this is a matter of acclimation.
Out to around 10 yards on a full-facing/full-value target, to a certain degree, I can shoot just based on index and using the gun itself as the sight. In other words, get the pistol in the eye-target line, muzzle on target, and if the pistol is aligned based on the profile of the pistol, press the shot. With proper grip and recoil management, the gun should return to where it left
Jim Cirillo wrote about the above concept, and given the number of gunfights he won, he knows of which he speaks.
If the target isn't full-facing/full-value, then I have to get on the sights.
All of this is similar to what you are describing with the hostage shots above versus the full-value targets.
