Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Jake Di Vita

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Jake Di Vita

  • Rank
    A lifetime of training for just 10 seconds.
  • Birthday 11/07/1984

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Fenton, Michigan
  • Real Name
    Jake Di Vita

Recent Profile Visitors

3,739 profile views
  1. This isn't what is happening. After all this talk, if you still think this is what I'm doing and what we're talking about, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Looking back I didn't really specify one beyond the basic parameters, so I'll detail one I've done in the past. 3 targets each spaced 1.5 yards apart from each other. Target on the right is 3 yards away, middle target is 1 yard, left target is 5 yards. Start facing targets gun loaded in holster hands at sides. On beep 2 on each. Alternate between aligning the front sight in the rear notch for all targets and going off index or some less detailed picture of the gun. I did a relatively small sample size of 100 runs, 50 of each. My average with aligning my sights for every shot was 1.65 while my average of going off index was 1.42. Draw average for sights only was .82 while the average for index was .79). This was done with an iron sighted gun. Points for this drill are irrelevant. The goal is to see if you have a speed difference between using your sights vs. a coarser sight picture/index. When I noted the clear time difference I decided to work on figuring out how to call my shots using the faster method. It took a year and a half or so before I was consistent enough calling my shots to use it in a match.
  2. Can you give me the science behind your position? I can give you my results, but that hardly qualifies as science. Try it yourself. I recommended a drill to you earlier, I'd be interested in your results.
  3. I agree with pretty much everything you said except this excerpt. I can switch between seeing the sights on partials and seeing my fist on open targets without any trouble whatsoever. I'm not consciously deciding anything in the same way that I don't have to consciously decide to use a more refined sight picture on a 20 yard partial than a 10 yard partial. I already know what I need to see to hit each target before I do it, with or without the sights. Operating under the conditions you listed I can understand why you feel the way you do, but I did not have the same experience as you. My testing has led me to my methodology, as yours has.
  4. What I've been saying the whole time is it IS possible to call your shots without seeing your sights. A well developed index with a coarse sight picture (the example I used earlier was fists in front of brown) and experience. I freely admit that there is a higher margin of error, which is why I don't do this for all targets. When I do engage targets I deem appropriate in this manner I'm able to call an acceptable shot a good bit faster than if I were forcing myself to use the actual sights. I'm still letting my vision drive my shooting and I'm calling both shots.
  5. It clearly won't make anyone's trigger finger move faster. That's not at all what it's about.
  6. I'm not talking about low hanging fruit. I'm also not making recommendations to developing shooters to not aim. I'm saying the fastest way to successfully engage a target is to use only the amount of information you need to call your shot and hit an alpha. The information required will differ for everyone based on their skill and the target they are shooting. Don't worry about thinking of a good reason why it should take longer, try what I was saying at one yard and see if there's any difference for you at all. If it exists for that example it exists for all targets. Then depending on your individual level of skill you can determine where and how appropriate it is to use. For me, the margin of error gets too high when I get to about 7 yards and beyond. For other people the margin of error might be too high at 1 yard. I know exactly what I'm capable of and what I'm not capable of and I make my decisions based on that knowledge. Don't get it twisted and think that I would recommend all shooters at all levels to do exactly what I do. I'll be the first to tell you that my methodology took years of hard work and analysis. If someone has not put the work in, they are not going to find success trying to emulate what I do. Which is pretty much what I'm saying. For me, seeing the sights on close open targets is over-refining the sight picture. You don't necessarily have to notice the sights to know where there are. Yeah I think this is mostly valid. Where I would disagree is whatever you are looking at in order to call your shots has to be recognized before or at the precise instant the bullet leaves the barrel or you aren't calling your shots. So when you say that watching the sights doesn't mean processing that information before firing I don't think that's entirely accurate. If the earliest point that you notice your sights is in the middle of recoil, they aren't really telling you anything. If you aren't processing information before you fire you probably aren't calling your shots. It is faster for me to recognize where the gun is pointed by peripherally seeing the gun as a whole than focusing on the actual sights. This speed comes at the cost of a larger margin of error, which is why I don't do it for every target. It's a balancing act.
  7. I'm not with you here. I'd consider settling and stabilizing the sights to be a process based on visual input, and when executed correctly there is no settling and stabilizing. If I'm doing my job when I transition to a target the sights land exactly where I want to shoot. If I'm doing my job with recoil management the sights recoil and land exactly where I want to shoot. I also slap the crap out of the trigger for all but the most difficult of shots. So if you're shooting a target that is 1 yard away from you, do you think aiming with the sights will take no longer than seeing the outline of your hands inside the A zone? If you're right both of those activities should take exactly the same time. I know for certain they don't take the same time for me.
  8. Sure, I totally agree. Where I'm coming from is I think everything has a cost. If the issue is simply the ability to pay attention, that's a separate problem. Once you have that sorted out and you have a decently high level of technical ability, then I don't think processing more information while shooting the same speed is very realistic. That's why harder shots tend to take longer than easier shots right? Because harder shots require more visual input to execute properly. You just tried to throw poop at me instead of addressing my response to your position. Attacking me instead of my words. Even now you're acting like what I'm saying is willingly donating time or points to my competition. Can you logically explain why my response to you is incorrect or not? Your lame attempt to come after me instead of what I'm saying is not going to go unchallenged. I at least gave you the common courtesy of breaking your points down and responding to them. Yes, you're reading it wrong. I did not say seeing your sights is a waste of time. I said there are many targets where seeing my sights is more information than I need to execute and call alphas. I'm not going to shoot a 5 yard target the same way I would shoot a 15 yard target. I'm going to see what I need to see to make the shot. If you're seeing your sights on every single shot, then you simply require more information than I do. When I talk about processing information I'm talking about what happens before the shot. I want to process only what I need to execute the shot I'm taking. If I know my round is going to impact 1 inch left of center in the A without reading it directly from the bumps on the top of the gun, why would I refine my sight picture any more before taking the shot?
  9. Yeah I don't compete too much right now, I have other things going on in my life that are more important to me. That being said, I did shoot 96% of our current national champion at the Michigan state match about 6 months before he won nationals all while doing no live fire practice whatsoever. So the "facts" you're pointing out are not quite telling the whole story now are they? Instead of resorting to ad hominem (the preferred choice for most people that can't argue logically), why don't you address what I said? Tell me why what I said was wrong. Unless of course you can't.
  10. Just because you need to see your sights at super close range to be consistently accurate and call your shots doesn't mean everyone does. Nice strawman you set up there. I'm not seeing anyone advocate not looking at anything and just pulling the trigger or doing your equivalent of running across the highway blindfolded. What we are arguing is exactly how much information is required in order for you to call your shots and hit alphas at close range. I hardly use the sights on the gun for anything 5 yards and in, yet I've consistently shot close to 95% of the points throughout the course of the season many times. Do you really think that qualifies as doing something incorrectly and getting away with it? I don't. It's not that seeing the sights takes too long (I wonder if you even read what I was saying at this point). It's that getting precise feedback from my sights is WAY more information than I need to execute the vast majority of shots on targets 5 yards and in. You say there is zero delay, but that simply isn't true. There is always going to be a non zero amount of time that is required in order for you to process what you're seeing. That time required goes higher based on what you are gathering the information from and how much information there is to process. What you're saying sounds good, but I think most of the time it doesn't play out that way in the real world. It sounds like you are taking the position that it's impossible to call shots on close targets without seeing your sights. As I said in my first post in this thread, the ONLY thing that matters is knowing where your gun is pointed the instant the bullet leaves the barrel. That is what calling shots means. When I go fist in front of brown mode, I'm not hoping anything. I know where my rounds are going. I wouldn't do it if I wasn't able to call my shots with that methodology. I don't need the same amount of information for a 5 yard open target as I do for a 10 yard partial no shoot. Gathering/processing the same amount of information for both targets is not very efficient. Here's the option I use: Get the minimum information required by looking at anything that gives you the required information to call every shot. The more coarse the source of the information, the faster you are likely to process it. Seeing your sights ALL THE TIME might be how you have to do it. I am not beholden to the requirements that you have set for yourself to be able to call your shots. I'll reiterate. The only thing that matters is you know precisely where the gun is pointed when the bullet leaves the barrel. There are many ways of gathering this information. The sights certainly give you the most accurate feedback. The most accurate feedback is not necessary for every target.
  11. For sure. He asked about me so that's how I answered. But I'm not pulling the trigger faster than I can see. I'm saying it's better to use as little information as possible while still calling and hitting the A zone. Your blake drill times being the same as bill drill times is likely a function of your splits being comparatively not very fast to your transitions being faster than average (I'm assuming you're transitions are .15-.18 since you said you're getting the same times). Probably not very common, but certainly not the first time I've seen it. Yeah the answer is absolutely dependent on the person. There's room for every shooter to be more aware of their sight pictures including all GMs. That being said, I don't want to process more information than is required for me to execute the shot. Yes I am an open shooter. No the dot does not slow me down on close targets. I think the dot is faster than irons on all targets with the only possible exception being when the sun is low and directly in your eyes. I've put in enough work on my index and NPA that I do not require information from the dot to execute on most targets 5 yards and in.
  12. Well I'm not going to say it is impossible, but I think it is extremely unlikely that anyone on this Earth can visually grab their sights before I can visually grab my fist in front of brown.
  13. That's fine if that's what you're doing. For me however, blurry sights is more information than I need the vast majority of the time at that range. Blurry sights is about the level of refinement I use on 5 yard half no-shoot targets. I get that you aren't looking for a blurry green fiber, but I think even noticing blurry sights is a more refined sight picture than fist in front of brown. We're talking about differences of a couple hundredths of a second, which is a small enough difference to make it incredibly hard to recognize for the majority of shooters.
  14. I don't see that. I think Wesquire has been pretty accurate in his statements. The whole idea of "it takes no longer to aim than not to aim" sounds great, but in my experience that just doesn't hold true. Any amount of refinement of your "sight" picture takes more time than no refinement. Any amount of changing focal distance takes more time than not changing focal distance. The amount of aiming needed on any given target depends entirely on that target and the shooter's ability. For anything 5 yards and in, fists in front of brown is all I usually need to see to hit alphas. And yes, there is a measurable and repeatable difference in speed for me if I need more refinement than fists in front of brown. It may not be a big difference, but as with anything in this sport, it adds up over the course of a match. The ONLY thing that matters is you know exactly where the gun is pointed when the bullet leaves the barrel. If you need a rock hard front sight focus at 5 yards in order to do that, that's fine because that is the amount of information you need. Other shooters, especially those with a well developed index, do not need that much information to execute properly. If you can process less information about your sight picture and still achieve the same accuracy results as the people that need to process more information about their sight picture, you're probably going beat the people that generally need more information to hit the target.
  15. 2011 LEFT HANDED shooter mag release help

    Not breaking my grip to reload is worth about a tenth to me. With no breaking of the grip I've gotten as low as .55. Breaking the grip I've never been below .65. Measure 1000 each way and take the average. I bet you'll see a time difference, even though it may be small.