dbooksta

Here's an extreme example of no-question-he's-point-shooting, by Vitaly Kryuchin (Russian IPSC phenom): In the video comments he claims he can call his shots even with no sight picture. Granted, we can't be sure whether this is just "trick-shooting" (meaning that he couldn't pull off similar performances on a novel course). Or does anyone have footage of him in competition that may show him clearly shooting with no sight picture?

Because it's simply wrong. Period. You are trying to tell a bunch shooters, who happen to be at the upper end of the spectrum, that have skills you don't have, how they are wrong. This is funny. You are what? Are you even a competitor? Maybe an enthusiast? You are talking to some shooters that have, quite literally, written on the subject. And on another note: a woman named Tanya Streeter just shattered the free dive records of both men and women. New record is 525ft. I mention this because physiologically, we weren't even capable of 100 feet just a few short years ago. Wow! @Whoops couldn't have put this any more simply. If you accept the claim that people can't perceive and react to a stimulus faster than about .15 seconds then faster splits are, by deduction, being shot before the second sight picture is perceived. This has led to plenty of interesting and useful points of discussion: E.g., what stimulus or perception are top practitioners referencing to decide to break the second shot if not the sight picture? There have been plenty of good answers. My takeaway is that they can perceive something wrong with the first shot, make the decision to shoot again, and depend on muscle memory to do so accurately. They do perceive the second sight picture, so they can call their second shot, but only after they have sent the command to break the second shot. So we're not disputing what you achieve -- accurate splits below the reaction threshold, and calling each shot -- nor are we disputing that you perceived a second sight picture. We're merely clarifying that it's physiologically impossible for the perception of the latter to have preceded the former, which fact has illuminated this deeper discussion. Now, if you reject that physiological constraint, and if you could find a way to demonstrate that it can be meaningfully exceeded, then there are many academics who would love to hear from you. That would be a guaranteed publication. (As for this free dive analogy: was there at some point a scientific consensus that humans were physiologically incapable of exceeding a certain depth? If so what was the basis and constraint specifically cited? The reaction stimulus is based on nerve impulse speed, which is based on well understood chemistry and physics. A claim that some humans have faster nerve chemistry would be as groundbreaking as a discovery that some humans can see infrared radiation or smell carbon monoxide. It would require fundamentally different physiology than exists in any known human being.)

Here's why I think this isn't splitting hairs: If they're point shooting, consciously or not, then that suggests (as did Bob Londigran) that building muscle memory is essential to being a top competitor. That might be valuable to somebody who is evaluating their weaknesses and trying to construct the most efficient training regimen. It likely has other implications. For example, a GM who has only trained on Glocks would be expected to suffer a serious handicap on traditional grip angles. Someone who can point-shoot should be able to shoot accurately in conditions in which they cannot see their sights. @Cha, @Flex, et. al., even if you are technically point-shooting I am not saying I disbelieve what you perceive. As I, and some of you, mentioned earlier, once you've hardwired these skills you can transpose them, both consciously and subconsciously. You can perceive that you (A) needed a follow-up, (B ) had a good sight picture, and (C ) sent the shot, even if the reality is that your brain sent the signal for C before receiving the signal for B. Just as there is a lower limit on reaction time I recall there is a lower limit on the ability to temporally sequence perceptions.

Your opening post reminded me a bit of Swiss Cheese. - You made an assumption about Mas shooting a G26, and then drew a conclusion from that. I'd have a hard time agreeing with your assumption, and your conclusion. - You read something into Bob's article in Front Sight that Bob clarified that he didn't mean at all. - You made an assertion that those with experience don't really know what it is that they are experiencing. That one is a bit ironic, LOL. - You suggested an experiment, which might have expected results, but doesn't necessarily support your assertion. Fair enough, let me try again: Definition: Point shooting is the act of triggering a shot with gun alignment based on muscle memory, not based on visual confirmation of sight alignment. Hypothesis: Top shooters often point-shoot. Evidence: Top shooters execute splits that are faster than physiologically possible if they were to wait for a proper sight picture before triggering the shot. Proposal: Alter the grip angle on such a shooter's gun so that he can't rely on muscle memory to align it (or if he does the shot will go high or low). If he is unable to execute accurate hyper-splits in that condition then we have evidence that he was using muscle memory, not sight alignment -- i.e., he was point-shooting. Caveat: Shooter might be able to quickly adapt to the changed grip angle, so a negative on the test doesn't negate the hypothesis. I can't think of a way to control for this. Suggestions on better experiment designs welcome!

OK, so there's clearly a "zen to pistol shooting." If you're willing to believe the subconscious mind can do anything that probably doesn't hurt, but it doesn't explain what's going on. Sure, exceptional athletes and performers can do things that are impossible until they're hardwired below the level of conscious control. For example, virtuosos can pretty much perform blindfolded because they don't have an OODA loop. Can you subconscious/zen advocates give any example of performers that can reliably perform a feat that requires reaction to a visual stimulus faster than .15 seconds? NB: In my original post I suggested an experiment that might settle the question. Any takers?

@Flex, @Cha, and the other masters who insist they always see their sights, can you clarify again what you count as a sight picture? On your fastest splits is your focus staying on your front sight? Does a target focus count as a sight picture, and if so do you ever adjust your sight alignment while focusing on a target? I'm still curious to learn if there's a known physiological limit on focal transitions. Are you aware of a time delay when you make a focal transition from the target to the front sight? E.g., do you consciously avoid that focal transition when possible to save time?

We need to acknowledge that there are physiological limitations involved here. @Whoops suggested the .15 second bound on reaction time. My neurophysiology is a little rusty: is that the bound on any reaction to visual stimulus? Or is it the bound on hands reacting to a visual stimulus, which means it's the sum of three processes: ocular stimulus processing through the visual cortex (Observe) post-processing of the perception to make a decision to act (Decide) and then the delay between the decision to act and the impulse reaching the muscles (Act) It seems @Flex suggests that training can cut out one of those steps, though I don't see how that's logically possible. There's no question that training can cut steps 2 and 3 to the physiological limit, but if you're waiting for a visual perception of the sights being on target to make a decision to act then you can't break that lower bound. @Flex, it sounds like what you're describing is reacting to a perception of the first shot, thus putting the second "Decide" step before the first "Observe" step. That would get you sped up, but it also means you are point shooting because you've sent the signal to shoot again before you could physiologically acquire the sight picture. Which doesn't mean what you're saying is incorrect: After all, if you're that experienced your muscles will not break the second shot until you're on target, at which point you will have what you consider an acceptable sight picture. You can even "call the shot" because you can begin processing the second sight picture at the same time your muscles are breaking the shot. But if you couldn't point shoot you wouldn't be able to dissociate and reorder the Observe, Decide, and Act steps.

Thanks -- this is the sort of evidence I had been looking for. So sounds like for IPSC-sized targets(?) true point-shooting is often consciously used out to at least 10 feet. Based on other responses it sounds like "soft-sighting" iron sights -- i.e., seeing the sights on target but keeping focus on the target and not focusing on the front sight -- is consciously done far more. I'd be interested to know to what distances that's intentionally done, whether it varies with sight type, and whether those who consciously practice it suffer penalties or whether they can develop good enough muscle memory that shifting to the front sight provides no benefit in accuracy. All my guns are traditional notch-and-post, and at least at my level of practice there is a distinct time penalty introduced by the "target, dot ... target, dot ..." transition in focus. Does anybody know of a physiological lower bound on how long it takes to make that focal transition? And maybe does it vary with distance?

Agreed -- "double-tapping" or subsequent shots to a static target off a single initial sight picture are a separate skill from point-shooting.

I guess I'm assuming that if your focus remains on the target, and you don't take the time to confirm sight alignment, then you're not using the sights (with the exception perhaps of those neon triangle sights that you could align out of focus), and that's what I'm calling point shooting. If you can get the same score with no sights on the gun as with sights then that would be evidence you're point-shooting. Maybe another test for point-shooting would be to run through targets in sufficiently low light that you can't your sights, with and without tritium sights. Or if you're running an optical sight just turn it off and run through a course and see how you do compared to shooting with it on.

Just to clarify: Point-shooting doesn't mean hip-shooting. Assuming the circumstances allow, when I point-shoot I present the gun the same way as when I take aimed shots. The only person who knows I didn't acquire the sights before shooting is me. I'm not bad with a Glock, the handgun with which I practice the most, but when I switch to a gun with a standard grip angle my point-shots are very low. When I ran this question by Mas he agreed he might be subconsciously doing it, but he's so experienced with every gun we couldn't readily find one with a grip angle that would throw him off if he were point-shooting.

Maybe I should rephrase the question: To what distances do master shooters point-shoot? I first suspected top shooters routinely point-shoot when Mas Ayoob wrote a column about how he shot a better match with a shorter Glock, which wouldn't make sense because of the reduced sight radius ... unless he were point shooting. Now I just saw Bob Londrigan's article in the current FRONT SIGHT in which he advocates competitors train to point shoot (though not in those words). Would any veterans care to weigh in on whether they are aware that they point shoot, and if so to what distances, or under what circumstances they positively acquire the front sight before shooting? I realize that shooters with a lot of experience may not realize they are point shooting, so if this is the case I would love to run an experiment in which a shooter runs a course with a familiar gun, then the grip angle is somehow modified (to an unconventional angle if he is experienced with multiple standard angles) and he has to shoot the course again. I'm suspecting experienced shooters would score much more poorly on hits and/or speed in the second event, whereas amateurs who still must consciously use their sights would perform about the same.

Found this topic thanks to Byron's mention in his article in the current Front Sight. Here's why my USPSA membership is going to lapse: I Emailed the following suggestion to the local match director. He responded with a sneering Email about how much time he devotes to the sport, and suggested that if I can't build my schedule around USPSA as currently run that I find a different sport. (As if that weren't enough, apparently he found my suggestion so ridiculous that he circulated it with his clique, one of whom broadcast a disparaging Email about my lack of commitment to this club's mailing list.) Perhaps in areas where USPSA is dominated by self-righteous fanatics like these, the rest of us should start a separate family-friendly (and respectful) IPSC group, like the one Byron Hall describes finding in Kentucky?