Hammer Pair vs Controlled Pair

[AKShootist]

Hi, I'm trying to improve in USPSA and have just started to work heavily on seeing my sights and calling shots but my question revolves around close targets. In the last match I was pushing really fast and there were two extremely close (1-2 yard) targets where I just caught a flash sight picture and punched out two shots like a "hammer pair". Is this acceptable or is it a crutch? I got away with it and shot alphas on both targets but should I be trying to track my front sight and call both shots on those very close targets or is there a point at which it's fine to just point shoot or do a hammer pair on close paper or large steel targets?

[DKnoch]

On a 1-2 yard target you dont really need much, if any sight picture. I just index my gun out and whack the trigger as fast as possible. In live fire practice, play around and see what you can get away with. 5 yards and less doesn't require much of a sight picture

Daniel K

[benos]

My goal was to shoot every target, regardless of its distance, the same - see everything (you need to, to know you got two A hits). So you are always doubt-free.

[TonytheTiger]

It doesn't really take more time to see than it does to point shoot. You may not need perfect sight alignment that close but you still want to see the sights.

[AKShootist]

Thanks for all the replies!

It seems like this may break down into more like two questions based on replies. There's the "point shooting" portion of the question which is based around sight picture and the "hammer pair" portion which revolves around getting two separate sight pictures or just getting one and smashing the trigger twice quickly.

To be clear I am definitely getting a decent flash sight picture. Granted it isn't what I would want for other longer targets but I index the gun, see the front sight and double tap the trigger to get two shots with one sight picture. Based off of what Brian is saying that is incorrect and I need to work on seeing the front sight for each shot.

Seeing the sights for each shot seems like the correct answer regardless of distance from what I'm hearing. I'll be curious to see how this affects my time at the next match or if it will have an impact at all.

[benos]

What I am saying is - you need only see what you need to see to know that you got two A hits. "What you see" will vary widely from target to target and from shooter to shooter - but the principle is the same.

[wtturn]

It would likely be helpful to abolish this idea about "pairs".  Every shot in USPSA is separate and distinct.  

The acceptable sight picture varies relative to the difficulty of the shot.

[fastluck13]

The thing is, if you are not able to do it every time, you need to see more. Points at a couple yards are not points you can afford to give away. 

[valerko]

On targets 1-2 yards away , I don't even remember looking at sights. Pretty much just looking down the slide and shooting as fast as you can. I'm pretty sure time needed to actually see the sights isn't worth it. At that distance you should be able shoot alphas , just based on dry fire

[CHA-LEE]

There are two primary issues with blasting at close targets with very little regard to your sights. The first is that you end up blasting at "Brown" instead of picking a specific place to aim at. This results in inconsistent hit quality and dropping points when you shouldn't be. The second issue is that since you are not calling your shots you can't transition off of the target as soon as the last shot breaks. You blast rounds at the target and the gun lingers on target way after the shooting is done. This may not seem like a lot of time but it usually translates to about .10 - .20 of additional time added to each transition.

The problem with this is that as our recoil management and natural point of aim gets better it tricks us into thinking that we can stop aiming and leverage those other skills to "Hope" hits onto targets. We all get sucked into this invalid thought process because doing so can produce decent results quite often. The thing it usually lacks is consistency in quality of hits. I have tested point shooting at targets verses seeing my sights and calling my shots extensively over the years. Both methods usually result in the same times, but the shot calling method always results in better quality hits.

When I am at matches I see shooters donating a crap ton of on target points because they are blasting at brown trying to point shoot targets aggressively. I thank them for their donation because I am going to call my shots and capture the A's instead of "Brown" hits. If you are not shooting all A's on targets within 5 yards your are wasting points due to sloppy shooting.     

[Dr Mitch]

I've seen a couple good open shooters this year blast at targets 3 yards or less and have alpha-mike BS because they hoped against wild point-shooting.  Aiming is where it's at.  Why chance crappy or non-existent hits when you already know you can rip A's at warp speed?  Think about calling your shots on classifiers.  It always works and it's as fast as you can see.

[kneelingatlas]

Whenever I try to shoot faster than I can see, my finger and arms get out of sync and I start transitioning before the second shot breaks.  Close targets are too easy not to score two As.

[motosapiens]

great points here, and I would add that the ONLY time I get trigger freeze is when i'm just trying to pull the trigger fast without  looking at the sights. It doesn't take any longer to pull the trigger while looking at the sights (in fact my splits are usually faster when i'm looking), and then i know where the shot went. If your eyes transition early somewhere else, the gun usually follows, so that 2nd shot may or may not go where you want.

My advice is aim every shot, but keep in mind you don't have to aim very carefully at targets that are 2 yards away.

[alucardus]

From 2 yards away I would say you want to be calling your shots for sure. Anything 1 yard and under I don't get a clean sight picture if its a normal height open target. Just by holding my gun up to the center of the target I can usually hit alphas at speed since at that range the A zone is going to be huge. This isn't usually a 100% conscious choice though its more of an instinctive reaction while under the clock. Now if its a low target, through a port, at an angle, etc basically anything that isn't a normal height straight on open target then I get a clean sight picture every time the fractions of a second you'll save will be completely negated if you end up dropping 2 deltas or worse mikes on an easy target.

[Jake Di Vita]

Seeing the sights is not necessarily a requirement to call your shots. Having a well developed index can be a potent asset. If there's a target that I know I can shoot 2 alphas 10 times in a row by index alone I have no problem with using index alone. On 2 yard targets, all I really need to see is my fist in the centerish of brown and I know I'm hitting the a zone.

[CHA-LEE]

26 minutes ago, Jake Di Vita said:

Seeing the sights is not necessarily a requirement to call your shots. Having a well developed index can be a potent asset. If there's a target that I know I can shoot 2 alphas 10 times in a row by index alone I have no problem with using index alone. On 2 yard targets, all I really need to see is my fist in the centerish of brown and I know I'm hitting the a zone.

And you do this because? It takes no additional time to see at least some kind of sight picture on all targets regardless of their distance so why not use them?

You are correct that once your index is solid you can get away with pointing at targets, blasting uncalled shots at them and "usually" getting A zone hits. But in that scenario you are basing your transition timing on a forced cadence/speed of shooting, not confirmed called hits. At least not without looking for holes in the target.

I don't know about you but calling the shot is what allows me to drive the transition, exit of the position, or start the reload IMMEDIATELY after the last shot on target breaks. Not to mention shot calling allows me to know what my hits are instantly instead of slinging lead in the direction of the target and "Hoping" I got my hits. Shooting a stage while hoping that you have hits on any target is a very distracting mental state to be in during the stage run. Why create additional distractions when it takes zero additional time or effort to simply observe your sights and call your shots?

I tried playing the "Point Shooting" game for about 2 years after making GM because my index was solid enough to get away with doing it most of the time. But there would usually be that random miss, delta or whatever that would screw up an otherwise good run. Consistency is what wins matches and point shooting is not a very consistent shooting performance tool to leverage. 

[fastluck13]

I agree with Mr. Lee. And it isn't necessarily the first shot that goes wrong. It will be the second as you are leaving the target. If all you know is that your hand was in the way of the target, that isn't really enough for the second shot to be an A

[Jake Di Vita]

2 hours ago, CHA-LEE said:

And you do this because? It takes no additional time to see at least some kind of sight picture on all targets regardless of their distance so why not use them?

It does take time to visually recognize an acceptable sight picture and make alterations if necessary. The time just decreases the better you are at it. Squaring my shooting platform to a 2 yard target so that the gun is pointed at the A zone doesn't require me seeing the sights and allows me to fire the instant that I finish squaring my hips/shoulders to it.

2 hours ago, CHA-LEE said:

You are correct that once your index is solid you can get away with pointing at targets, blasting uncalled shots at them and "usually" getting A zone hits. But in that scenario you are basing your transition timing on a forced cadence/speed of shooting, not confirmed called hits. At least not without looking for holes in the target.

Whoa whoa whoa, I never advocated blasting uncalled shots. Calling your shot is just knowing where the round will impact before it gets there. The sights are the most precise way of doing this. At 2 yards (even a bit further out) I don't need that level of precision to call 2 alpha 10 times in a row. It's not like I'm dropping C's when I'm doing this. I routinely shoot 92-95% of the points (I think I was 94% of possible points for the YEAR of 2015), and most of the matches I shoot have tons of partial targets.

2 hours ago, CHA-LEE said:

I don't know about you but calling the shot is what allows me to drive the transition, exit of the position, or start the reload IMMEDIATELY after the last shot on target breaks. Not to mention shot calling allows me to know what my hits are instantly instead of slinging lead in the direction of the target and "Hoping" I got my hits. Shooting a stage while hoping that you have hits on any target is a very distracting mental state to be in during the stage run. Why create additional distractions when it takes zero additional time or effort to simply observe your sights and call your shots?

I don't hope my hits are there. Most of the time I can call my score on targets at unload show clear. Once again, all that is required to call a shot is to know where the gun is pointed the instant the bullet leaves the barrel. The sights are a very precise and very reliable way of doing this, but not the only way.

2 hours ago, CHA-LEE said:

I tried playing the "Point Shooting" game for about 2 years after making GM because my index was solid enough to get away with doing it most of the time. But there would usually be that random miss, delta or whatever that would screw up an otherwise good run. Consistency is what wins matches and point shooting is not a very consistent shooting performance tool to leverage. 

So did I. That's why I was an IDPA Master and my first USPSA classification was C. I agree that consistency is key, that's why I don't rely on index for all targets. I gather whatever information I need to shoot each target. Some targets require more information than others to successfully engage.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Jake Di Vita

[CHA-LEE]

To each their own I guess. Maybe a year or 10 down the road we will both change our minds on this topic. That is what is so fun about this game. The evolution of skills through time is a never ending churn. There are not many skills that I have not scrapped and rebuilt from the ground up at least 2 - 3 times so far to keep up with the evolution process. 

[Jake Di Vita]

Yep, no doubt. I've rebuilt my grip at least a half dozen times. We all have to find the best way to accentuate our ability and take advantage of our strengths.

[uewpew]

5 hours ago, Jake Di Vita said:

Seeing the sights is not necessarily a requirement to call your shots. Having a well developed index can be a potent asset. If there's a target that I know I can shoot 2 alphas 10 times in a row by index alone I have no problem with using index alone. On 2 yard targets, all I really need to see is my fist in the centerish of brown and I know I'm hitting the a zone.

^^ this.  good grip, good index, see the target, press-press (seeing your hits), & move on.  

[TonytheTiger]

35 minutes ago, uewpew said:

^^ this.  good grip, good index, see the target, press-press (seeing your hits), & move on.  

Seeing your hits? I'm not sure how that could be superior to seeing your sights and calling shots. 

[uewpew]

You look at your target before you shift your focus to your front sight, right?  At 1 to 2 yards, why spend the few extra tenths of a second focusing on your front sight?  Maybe i'm wrong or just can't shift my focus as fast as others, but engaging close targets in this manner hasn't burned me yet.

 

[TonytheTiger]

I guess when my eyes transition to a target my sights show up very shortly afterwards. On a target that close a very vague outline of the sights will suffice for shot calling. But I most certainly have not looked for nor seen holes in targets.

[motosapiens]

19 hours ago, Jake Di Vita said:

Seeing the sights is not necessarily a requirement to call your shots. Having a well developed index can be a potent asset. If there's a target that I know I can shoot 2 alphas 10 times in a row by index alone I have no problem with using index alone. On 2 yard targets, all I really need to see is my fist in the centerish of brown and I know I'm hitting the a zone.

seeing your fist is a sight picture, albeit not a terribly refined one. OTOH, just pointing your gun and pulling the trigger while you look somewhere else is NOT a sight picture.