Grip/Stance/NPA

[Religious Shooter]

I think the cup and saucer grip is actually better for accuracy than the "modern" grip.

To me all the pistol challenges were geared more towards accuracy than speed.

In my book Jay's using the right grip technique.

[diehli]

Wonder what Doug Koenig would have to say about that.

[Religious Shooter]

Get a newbie and have them shoot a 1" dot at 25 feet. Give them all the time in the world and have them use the two different techniques.

When you are starting it's a lot easier to hold the gun steady with the cup and saucer technique.

Proof is in the pudding. Cup and saucer guy has performed better than the "modern" grip shooters.

[diehli]

Yeah, it's gotta be the grip.

Could also be the deodorant he's wearing.

[XRe]

When you are starting it's a lot easier to hold the gun steady with the cup and saucer technique.

My experience with teaching students on the range does not bear this out at all. Invariably, they hit better with the modern modified isosceles. Regardless, the ability of a new shooter to utilize one technique over another says nothing about that technique's viability.

Most new shooters only know what Hollywood has shown them, and they're more comfortable in that Charlie's Angels form. Put them in a less comfortable (ie, new) position, and they start doing weird things.

Fact is, neither technique is better than the other purely for accuracy. Accuracy requires only that you line the sights up properly on target, and keep them there while the gun goes off. You can have the absolutely most horrible grip and stance on the planet and still shoot accurately if you can do those two things. What you cannot do is shoot accurately quickly with a poor grip/stance arrangement.

Proof is in the pudding. Cup and saucer guy has performed better than the "modern" grip shooters.

Performance under pressure, ability at sight alignment and trigger manipulation, etc... nothing to do with grip and stance. What you're seeing is training bias in the competition shooters - it's definitely a weakness in the skill set, overall, but it's one brought about by specialization in a particular sport. That does not mean their grip/stance technique is somehow inferior.

[Jake Di Vita]

Fact is, neither technique is better than the other purely for accuracy. Accuracy requires only that you line the sights up properly on target, and keep them there while the gun goes off. You can have the absolutely most horrible grip and stance on the planet and still shoot accurately if you can do those two things. What you cannot do is shoot accurately quickly with a poor grip/stance arrangement.

Totally legit. Grip and stance have NO bearing on slow-fire accuracy what-so-ever.

[diehli]

Deodorant, however, does.

[beltjones]

Get a newbie and have them shoot a 1" dot at 25 feet. Give them all the time in the world and have them use the two different techniques.

When you are starting it's a lot easier to hold the gun steady with the cup and saucer technique.

Proof is in the pudding. Cup and saucer guy has performed better than the "modern" grip shooters.

Pile on!!!

The Cup and Saucer guy is a high level athlete with a very high degree of coordination and an unshakable confidence. That's a recipe for success in virtually any athletic endeavor. Plus, aside from the fact that he's getting torpedoed in the editing room, he at least has a solid gameplan going into each event (shoot the bottom row only to account for his POI...).

Besides, holding the gun steady is not the key to accuracy, especially when shooting dinner plates at 10 yards. It's all in the trigger pull, baby, and clearly his trigger pull is consistent enough to have a consistent POI.

[MarkCO]

Besides, holding the gun steady is not the key to accuracy, especially when shooting dinner plates at 10 yards. It's all in the trigger pull, baby, and clearly his trigger pull is consistent enough to have a consistent POI.

Not sure wht you mean by the first sentence I quoted from you. Agreed on the second sentence, even if it "shoots" low and left for him.

Many of the skills "we" need to compete at an acceptable level in USPSA, 3-gun, Clays target sports, precision rifle, etc., are not tested on the show, but it really does not matter to me. The MENTAL certainly is tested though. I look at the show as pure marketing for what we all LOVE to do, and so far, it is working better than anything else on the market!

[Religious Shooter]

Hmm... that's interesting. Two USPSA GM's are saying that holding the gun steadier isn't conducive to better accuracy?

Yes, the cup and saucer grip is poor controlling recoil.

So grip and stance can effect recoil control... and yet grip and stance has nothing to do with accuracy? Natural point of aim?

For the record I use the "modern" grip.

[XRe]

Hmm... that's interesting. Two USPSA GM's are saying that holding the gun steadier isn't conducive to better accuracy?

...

So grip and stance can effect recoil control... and yet grip and stance has nothing to do with accuracy? Natural point of aim?

NPA doesn't have squat to do with accuracy, either. You read correctly - slow fire accuracy has nothing to do with grip/stance.

[Corey]

Grip/stance and recoil manaagement are things WE worry about we need to have a second shot be as accurate in as little amount of time (read: SPEED). Granted some speed would have helped either competitor in the Glock plate challenge, but most of the Top Shot challenges are about accuracy and hitting the target, not hitting the target mulitple times and onthe clock.

[beltjones]

Hmm... that's interesting. Two USPSA GM's are saying that holding the gun steadier isn't conducive to better accuracy?

Yes, the cup and saucer grip is poor controlling recoil.

So grip and stance can effect recoil control... and yet grip and stance has nothing to do with accuracy? Natural point of aim?

For the record I use the "modern" grip.

Holding in a cup and saucer grip will not necessarily improve the steadiness of your aim. And steadiness of aim is not the most important component of accuracy, to a degree (assuming you don't have palsy or something). Quality of trigger pull is far more important (aiming is the easy part, as they say). When I'm teaching beginners I always tell them not to worry about the fact that their front sight is moving around a little bit on the target. Trying to "steady" that movement will only lead to tension and fatigue. Instead I tell them to just let the sights move a little bit (they're going to no matter what - we're bipedal creatures that constantly have to make tiny shifts in our weight in order to maintain our balance) and to just focus 100% of their consciousness on their trigger pull. Obviously their vision should be focused on the front sight, but focusing one's vision is different from focusing one's consciousness.

So my contention is that the steadiness of Jay's grip had nothing to do with his success. The fact that he had a consistent (though bad, resulting in consistently low-left hits) trigger pull is what helped him win the challenge. The cup and saucer was a hindrance only in that it made him slow. Luckily his opponent was just as slow.

[Jake Di Vita]

Hmm... that's interesting. Two USPSA GM's are saying that holding the gun steadier isn't conducive to better accuracy?

Yes, the cup and saucer grip is poor controlling recoil.

So grip and stance can effect recoil control... and yet grip and stance has nothing to do with accuracy? Natural point of aim?

For the record I use the "modern" grip.

I can very easily flip a gun upside down and shoot A's at 20 yards all day long with my pinky on the trigger. I don't think anyone would call that an effective grip, but nonetheless, when given a slow fire setting I can be plenty accurate like that.

And once again, I agree with XRe. NPA has no impact on slow fire accuracy either. The only thing that matters is keeping the sights on the target until the bullet leaves the barrel.

The error you are making is that recoil control effects accuracy - which it does not since the bullet is gone before you actually even feel the recoil.

[Religious Shooter]

The error you are making is that recoil control effects accuracy - which it does not since the bullet is gone before you actually even feel the recoil.

What? Where did I say that?

When NRA Bullseye shooters talk about NPA... they are doing it for nothing?

How about rifle shooting? Do you guys think NPA doesn't matter there either?

[Jake Di Vita]

What? Where did I say that?

That was the logical progression of this statement: "So grip and stance can effect recoil control... and yet grip and stance has nothing to do with accuracy? Natural point of aim?"

It just reads to me like you are tying the two together. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were trying to say?

When NRA Bullseye shooters talk about NPA... they are doing it for nothing?

How about rifle shooting? Do you guys think NPA doesn't matter there either?

I would assume (because I don't have much experience with NRA Bullseye or Rifle shooting - although I do have some) that they do it from a consistency standpoint. Having as few changing variables as possible in your execution is very important when it comes to succeeding in competition. I think the primary use of NPA is to allow shooters to get on target quicker with less wasted motion. None of these things have an impact on your ability to keep the sights on the target until the bullet leaves the barrel.

Let me ask you this. In your opinion, how does NPA, grip, or stance help you keep the sights on the target through the duration of the trigger pull? (When we get down to the nitty gritty, that is all that accuracy really requires).

[Religious Shooter]

Let me ask you this. In your opinion, how does NPA help you keep the sights on the target through the duration of the trigger pull?

Like all other USPSA pistol shooters, I never paid attention to NPA. I knew about NPA from watching Allen Fulford's video back in the day. It essentially boiled down to this:

My link

"To find your natural point of aim, close your eyes and assume the positions described above....open them and see where your sights are aimed. Shift your feet to align the sights on the target bull. Now lower your arm, close your eyes and repeat the process until your are properly aligned. Simulate recoil with your arm and see where it falls back naturally. Adjust again if necessary. Remember, as tension free as possible. You should be able to stand in this position for a long time without any noticeable fatigue or movement."

When I started to do precision rifle NPA was brought up by other shooters. I essentially did the above but with a prone rifle. Using my NPA my groups became more consistent with less fliers.

My take on it is that there was less tension because the rifle was "naturally" holding itself on the target. I was using less muscle energy to aim the rifle and the crosshairs were a lot steadier than when I just plopped down and aimed at the target.

When I use NPA in pistol I experience the same thing --- less tension. But I can't say it tightened my pistol groups any, because I don't shoot pistol for groups anymore.

[Jake Di Vita]

Comfort? Sure. Consistency? Yep. Less tension? I'll buy that too. But I didn't see an explanation of how it helps you keep the sights on the target until the bullet leaves the barrel.

Let me try to word it differently. Take a shooter with the best NPA you can imagine. His grip and stance are picture perfect as well, but he flinches hard a millisecond before the bullet actually leaves the gun. Until he fixes that trigger control issue, he will never be an accurate shooter, correct? Now take a shooter with a garbage NPA and a grip/stance that looks like it's out of Charlie's Angels, but the sights don't budge at all when he drops the hammer. This shooter may not be using "correct" technique and probably isn't very efficient, but he can hit whatever he aims at.

If we can agree that these are two very plausible scenarios, I don't think that it's a very big leap to say that the determining factor in accuracy is essentially trigger control.

Thoughts?

[Paul Santiago]

Let me ask you this. In your opinion, how does NPA help you keep the sights on the target through the duration of the trigger pull?

"To find your natural point of aim, close your eyes and assume the positions described above....open them and see where your sights are aimed. Shift your feet to align the sights on the target bull. Now lower your arm, close your eyes and repeat the process until your are properly aligned. Simulate recoil with your arm and see where it falls back naturally. Adjust again if necessary. Remember, as tension free as possible. You should be able to stand in this position for a long time without any noticeable fatigue or movement."

My take on it is that there was less tension because the rifle was "naturally" holding itself on the target. I was using less muscle energy to aim the rifle and the crosshairs were a lot steadier than when I just plopped down and aimed at the target.

{{{DING!!!}}}

And THAT is exactly how we were taught to shoot for accuracy in boot camp for sitting, kneeling, prone, and offhand. Having your NPA also helps to bring your weapon back on target for consecutive shots.

To answer Jake's question, with proper NPA you you should be able to close your eyes, pull the trigger and hit your target.

[Jake Di Vita]

To answer Jake's question, with proper NPA you you should be able to close your eyes, pull the trigger and hit your target.

Sure. I agree with that completely. I know and understand that a well developed NPA will get you on target faster, but getting on target and hitting the target are two separate things. With that in mind, how does a well developed NPA aid in your ability to pull the trigger properly? Ditto that question for grip and stance.

[XRe]

You guys keep listing things that may assist in keeping the sights aligned on the target in an easier fashion. What you keep missing is that Jake and I are not discussing the "nice to haves". We're discussing the absolute, fundamental, irreducible requirements for accurate shooting, for which there are only two. You can screw up everything else, but if you do just those two things consistently, you will shoot an accurate shot every time. You may not be fast about it. You may not be as comfortable, or "tension free" as you could otherwise be. The sights may not be as steady on the target, and you may have to expend much more effort to keep them there. But the bullet will hit the target regardless of those things.

The only two things that matter in terms of shooter controllable variables in actually firing the shot for absolute accuracy are exactly where the gun is pointed when the bullet exits the barrel, and making sure the gun is pointed where the shooter wants the bullet to go. Not a single thing else matters. (and, you'll note that "shooter controlled variables in actually firing the shot" means at the moment the shot is broken, and does not include things like accurately ranging distance or reading wind, or target motion, etc)

I know that bakes everyone's brains. It can't possibly be that simple, can it? It is. It always has been. Barring some incredible jump in technology, it always will be, too. And Jake and I aren't the first ones to say it