Target to Target Transitions

[chp5]

Hi,

I have always shot with bent knees so that I can move my index from target to target -hopefully without disturbing my index too much.  As described in BE’s book, the knee bend helps my index remain consistent by allowing the pivot point to be in the lower body.  

However, I’ve traditionally initiated the transition to the next target by moving the gun with the upper body – and the knees/lower body seem to follow/pivot.

While dry firing on 3 IPSC targets in my garage (approx 6 yards and 1 yard apart), I started experimenting with initiating the target transitions with my lower body.  I mostly feel this movement in my knees and butt.  It also feels like I’m leaning in and out at the knee(s).  This method of initiating the transitions with the lower body “feels” very different than initiating the transition with the upper body and letting the lower body follow suit.  This method also seems to give me a very stable and relaxed index on the targets.  I wasn’t practicing on the timer, so I can’t tell if it was fast or not (what I “feel” is fast is often slow and vice versa).  

QUESTIONS:

1.  Am I way off base here or is this the way transitions should be initiated (and I’ve been doing it wrong all along)?  

2.  If this method is sound, does it apply when shooting on the move and if so how?  It seems to be more applicable to shooting in one spot.

Thanks for your thoughts.  

[Ron Ankeny]

chp5:

This is a good question and I am looking forward to seeing how the big dawgs answer. I started what became a very lengthy thread a year or so ago about transitions and I'll see if I can hunt it up.

On a personal level (and my learning curve might be different than yours) I found the biggest improvement in my transitions came when I got my vision squared away. The biomechanics are vital, but vision (for me) was the real key to getting those transition times down.

[Flexmoney]

I am with Ron on both accounts.

I want to hear what the big-dogs say.  I also think that a big key has to be the vision.  

I feel that calling the shot, then snapping the eyes to the next target...those steps seem vital.  Maybe a "loose" body can be lead by the eyes?

[38supPat]

Admin note: The links below are no longer active, but are revived in full on page 2 of this thread

http://www.brianenos.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard...rum=17&topic=33

http://www.brianenos.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard...orum=1&topic=22

http://www.brianenos.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard...orum=1&topic=24

These links might help...sorry Flex, I feel like I'm stealing your job

Experiment without the gun for a bit. Put two targets (to start) and turn to face each, without extending your arm, just turn so that you square off your chest to the targets.

At first try it with just getting your chest to square off, then move to getting your hips to squarely face each target. Its easy to get the chest to face because you can turn at the ankles, knees, hips, and waist. But when you move to facing your hips to the target, you can only move your ankles and knees. You'll feel it in your legs right away...they may be stiff for awhile after. Do this for say 15 or 20 min. until you get the difference in feel down, now try it with the gun at extension. Pay attention to the different feels. When you feel confident that you can feel the differences, go to the range and try it live fire on the timer and see if there are differences in the splits.

At first it might feel awkward, because you are used to turning with the waist. If so, and this is a good idea anyways, go get yourself a set of 10 or 15lb dumbells. Hold them up as if were your pistol, now repeat the pivot exercise. Remember that despite the extra weight, you still want to see it stop smoothly and precisely on the targets. This helps build your muscles for starting and stopping the turn. Also allows you to "dry fire" at the Gym and nobody will know.

I personally to pivot using only my legs, I find that they are stronger and therefore able to control the speed of the turn better, as well as starting and stopping. As well this is then the same approach taken for shooting on the move, let your legs do all the movement work, and the upper body do all the alignment work. Even on the move if you can index your upper body to the target, its almost impossible to miss

[benos]

I'm with Ron as well. I feel the vital aspects of transition speed are on this page:

http://www.brianenos.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard...112&start=0

chp5,

I'm guessing you are "discovering" something that has been happening all along, you just haven't noticed it. The mechanics of the "quick pivot" is the same in all sports or movents - it begins from the resistance between your feet and the earth, flows upward through your body and is eventually (easily) observable in the movement of your hands. Sure, if you could float in mid-air you could move your arm side to side without needing your feet on the ground, but how quickly could you do it?

be

[chp5]

Thanks for the replies.

BTW - Flexmoney, what did you mean by getting your vision squared away?

[Ron Ankeny]

chp5:

What I was talking about when I referred to my vision getting "squared away" was breaking habits that I brought with me to IPSC from the precision shooting sports. In a nutshell, the visual inputs, awareness of those inputs,  processing those inputs, and reacting to them is a whole lot different in IPSC than it was in PPC.

[Flexmoney]

Ron actually said to get the "vision squared away".  

I agree though.  It might be tough (for me) to explain.

Before I try...I am going to read the threads that Pat and Brian linked to (if these guys are telling youi to read something...make damn sure you read it).

Know that Brian talks about some basic stuff that is required for shooting...

1.  Finding the target

2.  Getting the gun on target

3.  Keeping the gun on target long enough to ensure the shot is made.

[Steve Anderson]

Brian said:

Transition speed is influenced by two factors:

1) IMMEDIATE, instantaneous, calling of the shot;

2) Simultaneous visual acquisition of the next target (either centrally or peripherally).

When you understand transition speed properly, there's really no "speed" involved. Moving quickly (to the next target) is the result of your INTENTION  to shoot the next target as quickly as possible, and is manifested by the occurrence of the previous two conditions.

be

For me, the breakthrough came when I learned to lead with the eyes. Call the shot, look to the next target, find the gun on it, repeat.

The coolest thing about Brian's quote above is the desire to hit the target. That desire creates the speed. So simple, so true.

[Flexmoney]

Wow, I just re-read some of those old threads.  Lots of "easter eggs" in there.

I was expecting to find a post which highlighted going from fundamental #3 (making & calling the shot)...to fundamental #1 (finding the target).

Sure enough...Brain had posted it...it is the passage that Steve found.

I was going to use Steve as an example too...

I was at the range with him this past summer before he figured this out.  We were experimenting on whether is was faster to shoot targets from far-to near or near-to far.  

Steve's target transitions were in the neighborhood of .50-.55. seconds.  They should have been about half that.  It didn't dawn on me why.  (I feel bad that I missed it).  I thought he was giving too much follow-thru (which is something to watch for, though we mostly don't give enough follow-thru).  

Steve soon figured out that he wasn't "leading the gun with his eyes".  He wasn't calling the shot, then imediately snapping his eyes to the next target.  What he was doing was following the front sight with his eyes..as if he was looking through a scope while he swung the gun to the next target.  If you read Brian's book, I think it is type 4 sight focus. When transitioning from target to target...this is slower (unless the targets are tight and distant, like plate racks at 20+ yards).

I'm not picking on Steve, and I know he won't see it as such.  This was a moment of understanding for him.  It was a moment of understanding for me as well.  I had been through it, and seeing him go through it allowed me to reinforce the lesson.

[benos]

"Leading with the eyes," keep your eyes moving" - that's good stuff.

A good training "trick" to improve acquisition speed, which works especially well with a tube-type-sighted Open gun, is to attempt to REMEMBER whether or not you saw the target you just acquired BEORE the scope appeared on that target. I remember it like: "See the targets "outside" (before) the scope. With irons, REMEMBER seeing the target before you notice the sights appearing.

be

[benny hill]

giveing a class the other day, I taught the class how to square up with the center target.[ 3 targets @ 8yds/ 4ft. apart.] with the upper body fixed, pivit only at the waist so as not to disturbe the sight picture as you index. you fire 2 shoot's on the 1st target, flick your eye's to the 2nd targets A zone & the gun will follow & stop were you are looking. My split's were .13  for each target & .15 shot to shot indexing.

[Steve Anderson]

Benos,

I like that see the target first, then the dot or sight on it.

I just removed the magazine subscription cards in the a-zone of my 25 ft dry fire targets and replaced them with business cards.

It really helps the snap of the gun to the already acquired target, forces precision.

Flex caught me last summer, I was doing OK on sheer determination and just starting to SEE the possibilities.

I will say it again, shooting with a dot will do wonders for your "irons" transitions. Put one one your .22 and get better. I was shooting my dot .22 when the heavens parted and the angels sang.....

SA

[Steve Anderson]

By the way, shooting pins tonite, We had to go from pins on a rail to pins on a table about 8-10ft away.

My splits for each pin (about six inches) and my transition from the rail to the table were almost identical with my open gun.

Dry fire.

SA

[benos]

[xtralongsentence] I remember one of my most incredible practice days ever - trashing even The Great One and Hardball (Jay Christy) time after time on run after run, even after The Great One changed the course of fire to favor strong and weak hand shooting, which he is extremely competent at, was precipitated by an insight in which I SAW, by way of truly seeing what actually happened, what I did not do, thereby realizing "what to do." [/xtralongsentence]

In an unusual moment of pure observation, I noticed/remembered my vision seeing/acquiring the last target (in an 8-shot sequence) as the entire IPSC target (as opposed to the center of the A-zone). I simultaneously noticed my gun stopping on a random area (C-zone, past center) of the target, and firing. In that moment, I REALIZED what I did not do, and I also knew that I could see exactly what I needed to see in the same time I did not see anything in particular. FIND AND SEE the exact spot on the target BEFORE the gun gets there. For the rest of that day I was invincible.

be

[ong45]

Brian,

I was out practicing steel challenge with a couple of buddies today, and was reflecting on your previous post on seeing the exact spot on the target before shooting.

Well, i decided to work on this and i looked for the center of the plate whether it was smoke & hope or 5 to go. When all was said and done, i had shot a personal best of 77.5

I wouldn't have thought that being that patient could be faster but here is the proof. THANK YOU

James Ong

[Guest Brad Stahlberg]

Brian and Pat both provided previous posts to view regarding target transitions. I can't get to them, any suggestions ?

[benos]

This thread was from the old ikonboard forum, before it was moved to the new invisionboad forum, so they will never work. I'll see if I can recover them and post them here.

be

[benos]

This post is actually the recovered ikonboard thread I referred to in a previous post; I'll recover Pat's threads later this afternoon.

be

Recovered thread from old forum, started by:

bkeeler

[recoverer’s note: Man, I forgot what a pain in the butt this is.]

Follow through

bkeeler:

Exactly what is follow through in shooting?

Is it the same thing as calling the shot?

I know what follow through is when throwing a baseball or swinging a bat but im just not sure what it is like in shooting.

When I shoot I watch the front site lift out of the notch, call the shot

then come back in the notch then i fire the next round, watch the front site lift call the shot then onto the next target.

Is that follow through or am I missing something?

Thanks

bkeeler

PaulW:

Ah, very good question, Brian covers this very well in his book.

Follow through consist of holding the sites on the target "after the gun fires", it's a split second after the release of the trigger and before, and somewhat during, the initial sight lift.

It goes along with calling your shot.

bkeeler:

I guess I need to read the book again!

mcoliver:

Yeah, I also need to read the book again. Until then I have this nagging thought...."If I were able to call the shot with relative precision what's the point of waiting for the FS to settle down?"

benos:

The trick, which allows the activity of followthrough to call the shot, is to learn to read where the shot went by reading the sites at the moment the shot fired. It has nothing to do with the activity of trying to hit a particular area or spot on a target, however.

You might read "The Call to Followthrough" post in my site, here:

<a href='http://www.brianenos.com/pages/words.html#expanded' target='_blank'></a>

(You'll have to scroll down a tad.)

be

Duane Thomas:

Since reading the posts on blinking, I've begun paying attention to what happens when I trigger a shot, and I've found, to my chagrin, I do indeed blink when the shot goes off. <hangs head in shame> I've worked on stopping that, and I still do it. But the weird thing is, I've gotten to the point now that I blink right AFTER the shot. I can see the sight picture at the instant the gun fires, then I blink between shots. By the time the sight is down out of recoil I'm on it again, and again I can see the sight picture at the instant the gun fires for the next shot. It doesn't seem to slow me down, or affect my accuracy, and I can call my shots. Weird. I'd still prefer to not be blinking at all, but I'm wondering if that's really necessary, what advantages I'd get from not blinking compared to what I'm doing now.

benos:

I'd still prefer to not be blinking at all, but I'm wondering if that's really necessary, what advantages I'd get from not blinking compared to what I'm doing now.

Duane,

Absolutely devote the time to train yourself to not blink at all times.

IMMEDIATELY after you see enough to call the shot, your eye needs to be locating the next target.

Transition speed is totally dependent on SEEING - at all times.

By simply directing your attention to your eye/face, and consciously holding your attention there during the ENTIRE shooting cycle - shot to shot or target to target - this problem will eventually "fix itself." Then later, now and then, do temporary "re-scans" of your eye/face to be sure your still keepin' em open.

be

Duane Thomas:

Thanks, B. Will do.

BrianH:

I think shooting steel helps to see this (steel challenge type) because you have to be able to call shots quickly, transition quickly and follow through. I like shooting steel, but I hate seeing how SLOW I am at it.

Watched Travis shoot steel today....holy crap! Fast, smooth, makes me want to go out and practice.....

benos:

Transition speed is influenced by two factors:

1) IMMEDIATE, instantaneous, calling of the shot;

2) Simultaneous visual acquisition of the next target (either centrally or peripherally).

When you understand transition speed properly, there's really no "speed" involved. Moving quickly (to the next target) is the result of your INTENTION to shoot the next target as quickly as possible, and is manifested by the occurrence of the previous two conditions.

be

mcoliver:

Aw c'mon BE, why do you always make it sound so right yet dang near impossible to do?

PaulW:

BE...once again an awesome explanation.

benos:

thanks fellas.

be

[benos]

[Recoverer’s note: This is topic 33 from the old ikonboard forum, that Pat referred to in his previous post before the forum was moved.]

This thread was started by benos and lost before the conversion:

Your Position – from where does it originate?

Like I said somewhere else, for the last month or so I've been overhauling my position from the vantage point of NPA. This morning, during my first "gun pickup," I had an insight. (Whewhoo! I've been thinking about a critical concept of the freestyle position all wrong. The concept/question is - from where does your position originate? Without killing it (for now) with an explanation, from now on, mine will originate from the target.

Detlef

but which target?

PaulW

My positions originates from my feet up, thats what's closest to the center of the earth.

Pat Harrison

Detlef: THE target

BE: cool insight, makes sense!

benos

Paul,

That's the way I've always felt, and consequently focused all my efforts in that direction. Maybe think about it like this - imagine your gun hanging in space, pointed at the target in question, (Detlef, I knew that one was coming! Must be one of "those" days... -- how would you "build" your position, from the gun to the ground, in order to have the least possible effect on disturbing your floating, perfectly aimed gun? What is most important, from the gun all the way to the ground?

PaulW

So if I hear you correctly your feet should work around your "floating" gun, istead of your gun working around your planted feet?

Flexmoney

That is how I used to shoot darts.

Say the first dart missed right...I would assume there was a problem with my delivery. I would stay the course and throw the second dart.

If the second dart also went right, I would step back and reset my feet...adjusting my NPA. I always tried to use the same stroke in throwing the dart(s). If I was off left or right, I could just aim different and adjust the throw...but that would add tension from fighting my nature point of aim.

As I got more in tune, I could tell after the first dart that my stroke was good, so my stance must have been off (if I missed left/right).

This is a direct carry-over to what Brian is saying. I had never put the two thing together either.

Thanks again Ghost Dog.

benos

Paul,

"So if I hear you correctly your feet should work around your "floating" gun, istead of your gun working around your planted feet?"

Yes, but not only your feet - EVERYTHING - especially your grip, head, and arms.

PaulW

Yes, of course everything, (grip, stance, head), but again it all originates from your feet, most of the time. Your NPA can also change, or be dictated by the shooting position, but your gun won't, because it will still be pointing at the target.

Rich Bagoly

I see the feet as perhaps the least important. I can move my feet around quite a bit, and as long as I don't fall on my ass, can still shoot reasonably well.

What can't you change without wrecking your ability to shoot like you desire?

bonedaddy

So far, my position originates from the most difficult target in the array. Not necessarily the one I'm going to shoot first, but the one that presents the greatest challenge. If I have a couple of close open targets and , say a 15 yarder with a close no-shoot, I square up on the 15 yarder.

Pat Harrison

I think some of you have missed the point. Where does your position origionate at any given time? Don't think of it as a position for an entire target bank, as it will vary (however slightly) from target to target. And since in IPSC especially (and IDPA) we need to be able to shoot a vast number of different target situations, we're not just talking about simple bill drills or 3 target arrays, so NPA does not apply either. You must shoot over, around, and under objects, maybe while holding something or activating something manually. Almost never do we see ourselves in a true NPA type stance/position.

So how does your position origionate if you are facing a target from an unusual position, eg low around the side of a barricade. Break it down. What is your position for each shot on a stage? And how do you arrive at it. Brian is saying it all starts with the target, then the gun, that is the most important object (actually it more the sights than the entire gun) So if you set your position according to the target given with the 'aim' of getting the gun/sights there, that is the initial building block for your position, everything else adapts itself to that end.

Which is more important when you enter a box, where your feet are or where your gun is? What dictates this? Both are guided by where the shot you are firing is going...the target. We have discussed in other forums the relative importance of what occurs if your feet are not 'exactly' in the right place when you enter a shooting location, be it a box, port, barricade etc. But what if your gun does not go 'exactly' to the right place before you shoot? This is dictated or directed by the target. So the Target is the starting place of any position as it is what must be hit. Everything else can be flexible to the end of hitting it, but the target is fixed.

Remember the fundamentals 1- find the TARGET, 2-get the gun to (aimed at) the TARGET, 3-Keep the gun there (the TARGET) while it fires.

It all goes back to the target.

Has anybody here ever shot from a swinging platform? This is a great way to understand this concept. On a swinging platform, your entire body must be in motion constantly in order to 'float' the gun on target. In this case everything except the target (which is still) ceases to matter. Your focus on the target and the goal of getting your floating gun aimed on it, allows your body to do whatever it takes to accomplish this. Thus your position is constantly changing, the only constant is the target.

Rich Bagoly

|The target is fixed, you can't change it.

The sights arn't any more important than your eye.

I think that most of the time, its the target, eye, then gun.

Pat Harrison

It may be a chicken and egg thing here. The point is to locate the gun on the target we use the sights to do this and the eye is what puts them together, one cannot accomplish it without the other.

But again we are talking position here not sight focus. Your position locates the gun to the target through natural alignment, while the eye does the 'aiming'. No natural alignment does not nessessarily mean the same thing as NPA. We can NA even in awkward positions. Somewhere else on this forum board is a post by Brian with regards to position. If nothing else read his expanded words on the main page regarding index.

Nik Habicht

I may be totally off base here, but I've thought about this thread for the last couple of weeks while shooting matches. I used to be really hung up on getting my body in perfect alignment before pulling the trigger. The consequences were a serious timelag and occasionally misses, because I'd be leaning so far out that I'd really feel off balance. For the last few weeks I've just tried to see the sights on the A-zone and pulled the trigger, ignoring my stance and index, where appropriate. This is not to suggest that I've abandoned good stance when standing or moving erect, just on those occasions where I'm shooting around awkward barriers or from odd positions.

benos

Right Nik - nothing needs to be "abandoned" - just keep everything in the "right perspective."

Thanks Pat - that's precisely my meaning. Moment to moment... it's just a different view of an old problem. At each instant - what is most important. The "do this to get that" is my greatest trap. I know it well because of my intimacy with it.

Pat Harrison

I think thats a trap we all fall into at one time or other. It ingrained to us, since birth, that thats how things work. 2+2=4, a then b lead to c. It takes a truly creative mind to look at or see things in a different light. Thats why I thought this insight was so cool, it is simple, but hard to grasp (probably because it is simple) It goes against what we are all taught when we begin to shoot "you must stand like this" "your arms must be like that" In the end it doesn't matter, what matters is hitting the target...however you get there. I remember watching golf (not a big fan, but there are occasionally cool insights there too) and I recall listening to the announcers criticizing Tiger Woods swing(this was early in his professional career). He was kicking ass, driving the ball farther than anyone else that day, and yet these guys were pointing out flaws in his swing? It never occured to them that the point was just to get the ball to the cup with the least strokes and Tiger was doing just that, so who cares what his swing looked like?

Duane Thomas

I've noticed this many times over the years. Some people get so hung up on using the "correct" technique, whatever that may be to them, they can watch someone doing things a different way and all they'll see is the "flaws," not the performance level which is way above what they're doing. It TOTALLY escapes their attention that the way that person is shooting....works.

Tdean

The Space Between.....

My shooting position is not dictated by the target, but by the obstacles placed between it and my bullet's path.

What the heck is "NPA"?

Pat Harrison

Natural Point of Aim...not to be confused with Index.

PaulW

Ahhh, I had it all backwards....I thought, then I re-read all the post and I don't do what I thought I did. Funny how the mind works. I stated in an eralier post that it's all originates from the ground up (feet, shoulders,head etc.). But I was wrong in my initial thought. I looked at how I would actually shoot a stage and found Brian was dead on, the target dictates your NPA....or should. As Pat said, so simple but yet so deep in understanding.

Tdean

Well then now, put an obstacle between you and the target...what happens?

Is it really the target which dictates position?

See where I'm comming from........

Pat Harrison

Your position is still based off of the target..in spite of the obstacle, you must still hit the target, the obstacle wouldn't matter if there were not a target to be engaged past it.

TDean,

I'm trying to see where you're coming from, but I can't get it. The relevant factor in my original utterance was: (A little Monty Python for you. OK, that's not part of my original utterance.) A target that you intend to hit from where you are, while holding your gun in your hand(s). If you bring in obstacles, then you'd just have to move and start all over.

Pat Harrison|

but the position is still based on hitting the target.

Nik Habicht

Pat,

Is that because even though you can't see the target when the buzzer goes, you know where you need to move to, in order to see the first target? I realize we're talking about a different kind of stance here ---- a get ready to move where I can see the target stance, if you will.

Flexmoney

So, the idea is for the gun to be in the proper postition to hit the target...the shooter has to be in the proper postiton behind the gun to support the gun, align the sights, and operate the trigger. All that while trying to provide the most stable and repeatable shooting platform possible. Right?

[benos]

Here's the topic 22 thread, posted in the old forum by Pat H.

This thread was started by benos and lost during the conversion.

The Index

benos:

I posted this on glocktalk.com today in response to an enquiry from Matt Burkett. So, here it is.

Regarding your shooting platform, it is important to distinguish between fundamentals and technique. "Fundamental" means essential. The fundamentals of shooting are:

1) Locate the target (visually, or with the force).

2) Get the gun aimed or pointed at the target.

3) Hold the gun in this spot or area until the gun fires.

The techniques of shooting are the individual components of our actions we use to accomplish these fundamentals. The various techniques that comprise the stance should, logically, enable us to best accomplish these fundamentals under the widest variety of conditions, both mental and physical.

By definition, the stance is the totality of the body’s position when engaging a target. In my experience, what matters most is the "Index" - the alignment of the upper body from the waist up. The function of the "Base" (waist down) in high-speed shooting is to provide a forward stability to the Index. Within reason, it doesn’t matter what the Base is doing while the Index is shooting. Ideally, you should be able to stand on one foot and switch to the other while retaining your forward balance and aiming point on the target. I’ll continue by discussing the important points of the Index, as opposed to the stance, which I’ve discovered (and am still discovering) after 20+ years of study.

The basics of the Index are:

1) The shoulders should be square, or at least fairly square to the target.

2) The arms should be fairly straight without locking the elbows, and should extend out naturally in relationship to the individuals body configuration.

3) The grip, with each hand, should be as high on the pistol as possible. (There are MANY subtleties of the grip, however, since this is a stance/index discussion, we won’t go there here.)

4) The head should be fairly straight up, without excessive tilting, and the shooting eye should be looking as squarely as possible out of the socket.

5) This is paramount: Once this position is assumed, the entire upper body - the head, arms, and grip - your Index - never change relationship with each other while shooting.

To nutshell it, the entire upper body is square to, and pointing at the target, and the Base is providing an aggressive, forward lean to the Index.

A few subtleties on the above: Your arms should have the feeling of "pushing through" the last few inches of their extension. To get the feeling of this, stand in your stance (you don’t need your pistol) with your arms not quite fully extended with the front of your grip touching a wall. Push forward on the wall as if you were trying to firmly push through it. This is the feeling of "extending without locking."

Even though visually different, the feeling of the Index, or shooting platform, feels like you are shooting a shotgun in that your whole upper body moves as a unit.

Without going into the various subtle differences of the grip, arm position, and general Index, used by all successful shooters, it is important to understand the purpose of the Index. The purpose is, without the burden and confusion of thinking, to quickly and consistently hit a target. The more variables you introduce into your Index, i.e., one arm excessively bent more than the other, one hand pushing or pulling more than the other, the less chance you have of reproducing a good platform to shoot from under a wide variety of conditions - especially under stress. This is why the current Index has evolved to its current state. Any "unnaturally excessive" Index, such as the Weaver, etc., will be more difficult to reproduce from stage to stage, from day to day, or just from moment to moment because our mental state and resulting muscle tension, is in constant flux. We (me, Rob, and others) found our consistency improved as we eliminated the variables introduced by pushing or pulling, straining and struggling.

Your Index is a part of your technique; the more consistent your technique, the better you will shoot – meaning execute the fundamentals - every time you need to. Does it make sense to train a technique that SOMEONE THINKS you should use if you will probably not use it under stress?

I had to opportunity to read a massive history of documented police "shootouts" prepared by Lt. Col. David Grossman. Not once did an officer shoot from anything other than an instinctive "point and shoot" position - even if the officer was heavily trained in the Weaver technique. That’s why the top competitors use the Index they do - results are their primary concern - technique is secondary, and is a by-product of the intention to perform the fundamentals effectively under stress. First see what is important (consistently hitting the target), and then see what you need to do to get there. This is called not starting from a conclusion.

When I began shooting IPSC in the late 70’s, I used the Weaver stance because I was told that was how you control the recoil of a .45 - you know, the man’s gun. Some years later, after experimenting and altering my Index, I was shooting a Bill Drill (6 shots into the A zone of an IPSC target at 7 yds in under 2 seconds) with a single stack .45 with 230g, 190 power factor loads. (I was practicing for the SOF match.) A local shooter was watching as I shot a 1.8 something run from a natural isosceles type position. He said, "Wow, I guess your technique doesn’t require wimp loads to be effective." A common misconception; he was starting to get the picture.

I consider Rob Leatham to be the greatest "instinctual" shooter on the planet with an iron-sighted pistol. Time and time again, I’ve seen him acquire and shoot targets so quickly it leaves you speechless. I questioned him on his approach. Basically, he said: Upper body (shoulders) square to the target, arms fully extended but not locked, and most importantly, once in position, the head, arms, and body move as a unit. He commented that he would not hesitate to adjust his feet while shooting if that will preserve the integrity of his Index. He also said, and I agree, "Why aim, if your position can do that for you"? This should not be taken to mean that he doesn’t aim when he needs to; it’s just that with proper technique, the gun points and shoots wherever you look.

Investigate the stability of your current platform by assuming your Index position and then introduce variables such as: Pulling back with one hand and not the other, pushing out with one hand and not the other, bending one elbow slightly and not the other, or bending both elbows the same amount. You’ll find, the more your position varies from the above outline, the more your pistol’s point of aim will change when you slightly alter small components of your Index.

be

bird:

Great post Brian, I had the pleasure of talking to Matt Burkett for well over an hour last night on the phone and it was a very good learning experience.

What you stated above was almost identical to what he told me.

Matt is a great person and I am looking forward to taking a private lesson from him someday..

Thanks for this board Brian, it is a constant source of inspiration.

I wish Matt's board was as active as this one..

(maybe you could get Rob to post here after he gets his laptop endorsement!!!)lol

benos:

bird,

I'll work on it.

be

Chriss Grube:

Brian,

looks like a good start on the basics book!

benos:

Right!

I've scavenged some of the more lengthy exlanations off this forum as raw material for the "Basics Book." Also, a few of the shooters I have worked with recently are at the BEginner level - this has also shown me the need for this material...

be

Pat Harrison:

This is the best description for Index I have ever seen, I recently did an article for the IPSC Ontario webpage (it hasn't showed up there yet) and our newsletter, where I tried to explain a similar concept, but I didn't come anywhere near covering it as well as you. Its interesting what you said about the 'base' not being to important as long as you keep balanced. I've never worried about where my feet are and have often shot on one foot (around barriers) and been completely comfortable doing so. So many shooters have it ingrained that they must shoot with both feet firmly planted in order to aim and control their pistol.

I really can't wait for the new book now...lol

Pat

benos:

Thanks Pat.

I think some shooters preference to have their feet firm in their stance is temperament related. Remember I told you from your picture, your body position looked just like the Great One himself?

He could care less where his feet are when shooting - I've had to "learn not to care."

be

PaulW:

It's amazing how you can put that into words so clearly and accurately. I know I have stumbled over my tongue many times trying to explain to another shooter the feeling I am getting when shooting. AWESOME!

Duane Thomas:

Re the foot position: I think a lot of people get totally hung up on using the "correct" technique - whatever that may be. For many people, that means putting the left foot forward (for a rightie). I remember one time I was attending a class and the instructor - not even the instructor, an assistant instructor....range monkey - came over and looked at how I was shooting. "Oh my God," he screeched, "you don't have your left foot forward!" Now I quit worrying about my feet years ago, so I was shooting with both feet square to the target. And he started kicking my left foot to get me to move it forward.

I have to say, it takes a brave man to walk up and start kicking a man with a gun in his hands.

I looked at the target. Sure enough, I hadn't been hallucinating, the bullet holes were in a nice, tight group in the center of the target. And I hadn't exactly been taking all day to do it, either. Like I said, some people get totally hung up on using the correct technique....so much so it absolutely escapes their notice that the technique you were using...works.

Pat Harrison:

I look at the body as if it is two parts, the upper body is for shooting, Index, and the lower body is for moving. The moving part gets you to the shooting but should not affect it too much, (execpt while shooting on the move, and even then it shouldn't affect your index it just has to move smoothly). Its kind of like a tank, the main body moves it around to get to the targets, while the turret takes care of the actual shooting.

Pat

Nik Habicht:

Great analogy, Pat. Ever since I read Brian's post I've been dryfiring. I've discovered that my Isosceles Index has a fair amount of Weaver (the stance I started with) left in it, because I never broke my bad habits. Already I can see the sights staying a little straighter as I transition between targets, the front sight used to shift to the left as I started to move, and then would center again only after I stopped on Target. I continue to be amazed at what I can learn here.....

Matt VDW:

3) Hold the gun in this spot or area until the gun fires.

Are you assuming that your subconscious will control the trigger? Otherwise, I think you'd be waiting a long time for the gun to fire on its own. :wink:

benos:

Good question Matt.

To clarify, since (the holding until it fires) is a Fundamental (not a Technique), I don't want to confuse the two by introducing myriad variations of trigger pull into a pure fundamental. (i.e., the instantaneous shootgun "jerk," vs. the several second long slow-fire press.)

The benefit of correctly understanding the Fundamentals lies in the subtle message they impart. To fire a succesful shot, you have to execute the Fundamentals. "How" you execute them is your Technique. No matter what gun we are shooting, the absence of followthrough (Fundamental #3, the "King") is often the reason we miss the target. Or, it doesn't matter how you do it; nevertheless, you must. (Execute the Fundamentals.)

Eventually, execution of the Fundamentals becomes a result of your clear "intention" to hit the target.

be

Matt VDW:

Another question:

I've heard Weaver proponents say that their stance simplifies things because it's basically the same for either a handgun or a rifle/shotgun. Is this a valid point?

PaulW:

Interesting question Matt.

Pat Harrison:

I think they're grasping at straws to justify not trying something new.

Pat

Duane Thomas:

What Pat said.

It's amazes me how some Weaver proponents assume people are so stupid they can't learn to shoot more than one type of firearm unless the techniques are "basically the same." Keep It Simple Stupid only makes sense if you are in fact stupid - or you're trying to teach people who are stupid.

You know where the K.I.S.S. theory came from? The military. Specifically wartime military training. When you're a drill sergeant and your job description is to take 500 terrified teenage draftees, any one of whom might or might not have a triple-digit IQ, and in eight weeks turn them into acceptable cannon fodder, then keeping things REALLY simple makes a lot of sense.

For myself, I don't need K.I.S.S. because I'm not stupid. You want to talk about stupid: the idea that people can't learn to automatically hold a rifle or shotgun like a rifle or shotgun and fire a handgun Isosceles, that's stupid.

Phil Dunlop:

I think the Weaver proponents might have a point. The stance is also simular to the one I adopt when brushing my teeth. saves any confusion.

P.D.

p.s. lol, and a smiley face if I knew how to do one.

[Recoverer’s add: type a colon and right parenthesis, Phil. ]

Jon Merricks:

Have you ever tried to shoot on the move from the weaver? It doesnt work. Maybe its too many years behind a subgun but I dont shoot weaver with my AR unless its beyond 100 yards. I guess you could call it isosceaver.

benos:

You guys got me thinkin' - I'm gonna develop a new (car) drivers seat especially for the tactically minded shooter - It'll be adjustable so you can drive your car in the Weaver position. What about a new book? - "How to live your entire life in the Weaver Position."

I think I'm on to somethin.

be

Chriss Grube:

Don't forget to attach the holster. They might forget where they put the gun!

Flexmoney:

I shoot an unofficial practical pistol match the other day. Eight round limit (which kills me and my 20 round Glock). Most of the shooters there were shooting some type of Weaver. I just got the results of the match today. :)

Paul Sharp:

Not to get too far off topic...,

When I was taught to shoot the MP-5 the instructor told me to round my shoulders forward as if trying to crush a baseball between my chest muscles. †Place the MP-5 closer to center of chest and use light forward lean. †His mantra was "forward pressure, this is a fight, its no time to lean back and get caught flat-footed". †Arms are "set" but not tense and the goal is to use your body to work the recoil instead of using muscle and excessive tension.

Sound familiar?

I was also taught to work the Shotgun in the same manner. †Hmmmmmmm.....

Push with your sternum..., I guess if I pull back with my hips that would make it a full body weaver.

benos:

Paul,

I had a police instructor teach me a very similar technique to shoot an H&K MP-5. At first it seemed weird (I was trying to shoot it like a .308 rifle), but after watching him shoot - I got the picture.

hmmm....

be

Matt VDW:

I thought the reason desk chairs swivelled was so we could all type in a Weaver stance. :smile:

OK, here's one last stance question: Has anyone here tried the "Turnipseed Stance"? I don't know what it is or how it's supposed to work but the inventor makes some strong claims for it.

Pat Harrison:

of course he does....lol

Pat

Pat Harrison:

There's one major problem when anyone is claiming how good the 'x' stance is. You are never in it! Ask yourself "How often am I really in 'x' stance during a course of fire?" IPSC and IDPA both force shooters into a variety of positions during a stage. That's why the Weaver and the Isosceles both fail during matches. They are static positions, great for firing lines but they don't work in a course of fire where there is movement, various height ports, etc. Thats why it is more important to learn about balance and index. With proper balance your body can adapt to any stance or position while the index gets you to the target. Don't think static, think flexible.

Pat

benos:

Ditto. I checked out that site (from the glocktalk) page. I'm wary of excess hype. As pictured, the pistol stance looked about 15 to 20 years old. Not that that's necessarily bad, but if a fellow told you, over and over, that he has secret techniques that no one else seems to have figured out by now???

be

John Thompson:

The shooting the H&K subguns and shotguns from the isocles stance was started by the same Navy Seals who now teach swat at the excellent H&K schools. Last year I wrote an article for the American Police Beat magazine. †It was in response to some wacked out quick fix articles on police shooting techniques. The article in particular I responded to was writen by a guy who was told by a so called police expert that after watching over 800 police shooting videos he concluded that cops don't and can't aim. The article said that aiming doesn't work ever and that the new will always work know matter what with out training technique was to: not grip the gun with your strong hand index finger but instead point it to the target.(ow!) I read another article that said this technique is being taught to Conn. state troopers. My response was that the wrong conclusion was drawn from the police shooting videos. My conclusion was that those 800 cops couldn't shoot not because aiming didn't work but because they couldn't shoot during a time of stress, period. i.e. they didn't practice enough. Shooting is a martial art and has to practiced and developed constantly. I did an experiment(which a certain gun expert writer replicated in a more scientific way in a national magazine some months later) where I ,an A class shooter, and a friend D class shooter shot a match with our sights covered by tape. We both shot the match and scored within our classes. This was because we had to rely on muscle memory from our practice to "aim" the gun. I have spent four years shooting with the stance that Brain says will aim the gun for me and it did. The D class shooter has not and performed as expected.I developed the muscle memory that puts the gun where I wanted it to go which was the point of my article. I ended the article/letter with the thought that I would probably not use my sights in a life or death close range shooting but that I would prevail with the confidence and ability gained through proper pratice and prepreation. An FBI study shows that people who have shot and killed police have practiced shooting on the average once a month. No quick fix used there.

Jon Merricks:

John,

H K does run first class training. I have been to training at there facilities just outside DC. I am curious about thier Seal Instructor that makes claim to have started the isosceles stance that they teach. As I recall most of what we have been useing as far as the MP5 goes has been borrowed from another country. I am in no way saying I had any envolvement in this stance. I am not envolved with any black ops or any triple S (Super Secret Shit) Team. I may have not even been born when this stance was being used. Through my expierence with the subgun and even M4 types the stance they teach is the best for what it is used. When Phil Singleton started this class for H K 15 or so years go I do believe it was being used then. This is in no way meant as a slam to you or anybody else. I am just curious of who would lay claim to this stance.

Thanks Jon

John Thompson:

Jon, nobody claimed to me to have invented or devloped the stance. It was a conclusion I drew with my expierence with what other schools advocate. The H&K school's curriculem has been greatly infuenced by the SEALs and from what I know(which obviously is differnet from other people's expierence) the H&K school currently has the most clout and influence on SWAT training. Other schools do use the same stance such as the traveling Miami Metro Dade swat school. Your right in that the SEALS probably didn't invent the subgun stance or a lot of the other things that they teach but they do have a big influence when they retire and teach as civilians. As a side thought I don't agree with everything H&K teaches. They teach to shoot a handgun with the same agressive knee bend as the subgun. Trying to shoot this way caused me so much body tension and stress that my shooting performances took a nose dive.

Chriss Grube:

The SEALs learned the technique from the Brits at SAS. Those guys are probably the top guys in the world when it comes to the MP5.

Jeff Gonzales:

Well, I feel I should pipe in here. Brian, our exchange on GT has been very beneficial to me and I have enjoyed it thoroughly. As always your insight is much appreciated. For the benefit of those who do not know who I am, I am the Director of Training for Trident Concepts and a former SEAL of 12 years. This is an attempt to dispell or create more confusion concerning certain topics.

As for the stance with the MP5, in truth it orginated in Germany with GSG9 and since SAS, GSG9 and us work together on a regular basis it was adopted to a degree and evolved to best suit our needs, which is really the bulk of our doctrine. Adaption and improvisation.

Adaptation and improvisation are the keys to getting hits for me. I would love to be able to shoot in competition with no more thought than what a great time I had, but I cannot. I still jock-up and go overseas and not as a tourist. It is very important my skills exist for one reason, to get me and my team home safe. I can be very stubborn when it comes to the ever subjective "tactics", but one thing that transcends the competitive and combative world is the hit. You cannot hit fast enough to make up a miss and when you carry the gear, ammunition is a premium.

The situation will dictate how I will fight, notice how I use the word fight instead of shoot. Shooting can be the product, but fighting is the process, all else is subordinate. In so doing, the terrain will tell me where my feet (base) are going to be. Whether it is a rocky slope or slippery ship deck, it does not matter, I have been walking, stumbling and falling all my life, I don't need any help in that department. As for the index, the key has always been my ability to get the front sight. Shooting around cover, near people and against other people has helped me to develop a simply philosophy. I make every attempt to get in the best stance the situation and time affords, but when that fails as it usualy will, get the front sight and press the rounds.

My intention was not to distance folks, but bring them in. There is a tremendous amount of information I can achieve by working closer with competitive shooters and by the same token there is a tremendous amount of information I can pass to those interested. That has been my purpose, to bridge the gap between the competitive and combative worlds. The first thing I tell my students is, "You will not learn anything from me that will help you win in competition, you will learn how to fight in combat." It may sound melodramatic to some but I can assure you, in the heat of battle it is anything but melodramatic. I enjoy shooting in competition as it always remindeds me how I could have done better and work to become better. I put competition in a context that is appropriate for me, it is a testing platform for my skills. Every round I put down range goes out with one purpose, not to hit the target, but to stop the act of aggression. It is hard to keep that context, but working more closely with the competitive world has helped. Folks, take it for what is it worth, I am hear to learn.

Jon Merricks:

Thanks Jeff I was hopeing that you would jump in.

bird:

Thanks Jeff, it is always good to hear your advice.

One of my best friends was a SEAL in Nam and i asked his advice on my desire to shoot in competition.

(i always show him my targets after a range session).

His advice was the following basics.

1. shooting is shooting..rather it be competition or combat, don't think about shooting just do it.

(point your finger at something and change your sight focus from the threat to the front sight and just shoot).

2. as long as you can always hit a pie plate under any and all circumstances at any reasonable distance you will have a "hit" (kill).

3. you have to learn how to shoot under any and all conditions regardless of your stance etc. "you won't †have the luxury of having a warm shower and a hot dinner before you may have to shoot, just do it, dont think."

4. Don't think about shooting while you shoot.

5. if you want to try your hand at competition just do it, competition shooters don't really care about your little 1"-3" groups at 7 to 15 yards, just go out and hit the "pie plate" every time and dont over analyze while you shoot..

Wise advice IMO, he told me he hit the enemy at 150 yds (head shot) using his S&W .41 magnum and he has 2 purple hearts.

BTW today is his 56th birthday and we had a nice lunch.

This silent warrior is my mentor and has always been there for me when i needed him.

Jeff, Brian, Pat, etc. any further words of wisdom is most welcome.

I love to learn...

lcarr:

Quote: from John Thompson on 7:28 am on June 19, 2001: An FBI study shows that people who have shot and killed police have practiced shooting on the average once a month.

Do you have the reference for this? A hyperlink would be even better.

Thanks,

Lincoln

John Thompson:

Lincoln, the statistic I stated was taken from the FBI Uniform Crime Report. I can't remember which year it was. The exact wording was "54% of 'cop killers' interviewed practiced with their firearms at least once a month". An interesting note about this; the two bad guys who killed the four FBI agents in the infamous Miami shootout in the 80's (and helped start the FBI's search for a better bullet that resulted in the .40) practiced constantly including just prior to the shootout.

[Guest Brad Stahlberg]

Thanks for bringing those back. There's lot's of good info there.

[benos]

This is the last thread, topic 24, that was originally posted in the old iconboard forum by Pat Harrison.

This thread was started by benos and lost in the conversion.

The Three Realms

:

Do you still get nervous in competiton?

And he also posed the question—"maybe ‘how’ we train is more important than ‘what.’"

benos:

I get nervous in competition almost every time. I have learned through experience, however, no matter what the stress factor, if I just focus on the fundamentals I will still shoot my best. As a competitor, this is a valuable lesson—even if you’re so nervous you can’t breath, at least you know what to do.

Thank you for your thought provoking question on "how." Myself, I think "how we learn" is often overlooked, but essential for success, nevertheless. I had the good fortune to observe the "how" in a lesson last weekend in San Diego. After a dissertation in firearm safety, because of time restraints I only had a few minutes to impart "what you do to shoot a pistol" to an individual who had never even handled a pistol. (We were shooting a .45 with full power loads.) You had to be there to really see what I saw, but I’ll attempt a description. All my instruction was done in "real time"; I was talking, describing the essentials step by step as he was actually doing the functions. After he loaded the pistol, I was showing him the grip while he was aiming at the target; after he had his grip I finally explained what the sights should look like on the target; as he was aiming the pistol I was whispering in his ear: "Now feel your finger lightly touching the trigger, keep building, building the pressure, building…" Bang, a perfect shot, the best shot I saw all day, including my own. I stopped talking and he continued to empty the magazine, all perfect releases. After the slide locked back, I watched as he continued to rapidly build pressure on the trigger until he finally thought something was wrong with the gun and looked over at me—he never flinched.

There are three distinct elements at work when we set out to accomplish a task. In order of importance, these elements are attitude, fundamentals, and technique. In the highly accomplished practitioner, of course, all three are honed to perfection. Typically, the journeyman is attached to technique—believing that somehow, if I do certain things in certain ways, I will be effective. The beginner, unburdened from the conclusions fabricated by the partial knowledge of the expert, functions in a state of enquiry—the perfect learning state. Which, fortunately, whether he is aware of it or not, is the perfect attitude. Whether a beginner, journeyman, or master, at each moment, it’s best to start from the beginning.

Techniques (or mechanics) are the physical methods we use to shoot a firearm.

Technique becomes important as the challenge increases.

When doing demos for manufacturers, I would illustrate this with the following example. Loosely gripping the pistol with only my middle finger and thumb of my strong hand, I would shoot a very small slow-fire group at 10 yards (To illustrate the most important fundamental of shooting—releasing the shot into the intended area without disturbing your established aim.) Obviously, a firm strong-hand grip would be beneficial after I told the crowd I was going to shoot the same size group in one-half the time it took me to shoot the previous group. And then, a good two-handed Index made shooting the same size group in one-fourth the time a breeze. My point is—don’t get trapped in a literal understanding of this example—read between the lines.

One more story to illustrate the three elements. One year at Second Chance, I had 5 minutes to teach a complete novice girl to shoot pins in the famed "Timer Shootout." She was, however, an accomplished athlete, so I considered this as I rapidly began a dissertation on sight alignment/picture. Quickly I got to the "good stuff," the fundamentals. After explaining what it felt like to press the trigger and release the shot without disturbing her aim, I told her to not think of anything else but—eye on the sights, mind on the trigger. The first table was a nightmare, every pin was lying on the table; she couldn’t clear them because she was shooting too high. Thinking/hoping the problem was just in how she was "seeing her aim," on the next string I told her to aim at the bottom of the pins. She did, and mowed 5 pins off the table in 5 shots. After a couple whewhoo’s (!), I told her to not change anything, and before each string to think of only—eye on the sights, mind on the trigger. She cleared a few more tables in similar fashion. I started to say something encouraging; she just shook her head and told me that she knew what to do. I left her alone and she went on to win the entire shoot-off, trashing a boatload of not only girls, but also several guys in the process. Now the funny part is, halfway through the shoot-off an accomplished shooter walked by and said, "Man, why don’t you show her how to stand and grip the thing, her technique is terrible." "We don’t have time for that stuff," I replied.

If you’ve never shot pins, it’s not easy. The targets are small, and they need to be centered with FULL power loads to drive them off the table. (Richard Davis of Second Chance invented Pin shooting to simulate the distance/firearm/loads/accuracy requirement of a defensive situation.) This girl had no technique whatsoever, nevertheless, she shot brilliantly. Why? Because her attitude was faultless, and her attention was on the fundamentals of shooting. (I explained these in an earlier post called the "Index.")

Think about this: Considering the three elements at work while performing a task—which is paramount, and which "support"? Further, does your technique exist separately from your attitude?

be

bird:

Allright Brian, i am getting my BEginners Basics book after all...one post at a time (i am printing these out for my reference folder)thanks...

Also Brian, I think there is a guy on Glock Talk that is cutting your posts from here and pasting them over at the tatics and training section......you might want to check into this.....(He is even using your name).......:wink:......lol

bonedaddy:

Thanks Brian, I have been relying on techinque as a shooter for a very long time. I mostly shoot alone. Two summers ago, chance or karma if you will, brought me a new friend who helped me to discover that my fundamentals had gone out the window somewhere along the line. So, he helped me to focus on fundamentals over technique and there was immediate improvement. As material proof, I was stuck in a classification for 3 years and couldn't make the leap. Then bang, the focus on fundamentals did it! My friend has since moved away, but we still talk by phone every week. I gained form this in many ways.

Two summers go by.......

A month ago I stumbled upon your forum. It is a clean, friendly place, with many new ideas. Now, it seems like it's time for me to focus on attitude. (I didn't realize attitude was to be the next lesson until I read your last post.) So, I'll walk along and listen while you teach, and ask the occasional irrelevant question, if you don't mind. Thanks for providing this place.

benos:

bonedaddy,

Thank you, and you're welcome; however, please don't think your questions are irrelevant, your last one was excellent.

be

Ron Ankeny:

Brian:

I am pretty much a self taught shooter and I practice alone because there just isn't anyone in our town of 300 people to practice with. Some 15 years ago I shot PPC with a core of Master shooters and with good coaching, etc., I made Master in one year. As I think back, shooting with those guys not only imparted fundamentals and technique, it also developed what I find lacking in my shooting today, the proper attitude or frame of mind. At one time, I ran with the big dawgs and at any given match I knew that I would win my fair share of stages and the only question was which one of us would stay mentally focused long enough to win high overall given equal ability.

After a 10 year retirement (physical problems) I started shooting again. I have been shooting IPSC for about a year and I am very impatient with myself. Going from Master in one discipline (with a revolver) to rookie in another (with a semi-auto) is hard to deal with. I find myself frequently losing stages to shooters who do not have the technique or as good a grasp of the shooting fundamentals as I have. I think it is important to note that I recognize that the other guys are not defeating me, I am losing from within. I have more match experience than most and I have been in a number of pressure cookers. Still, somewhere along the line, I lost sight of the importance of attitutde and I thank you for reminding me. I think I need to spend more time on my mental game and less time trying to shave .01 seconds off of my draw.

bird:

It sounds like you have all the tools you need Ron.

Once you get the mental "attitude" taken care of i think you will be a REAL force to be reckoned with....

Hang in there, i know it will all come together for you someday...

benos:

Ron,

Good post - stay with it and stay sharp!

Jeff Gonzales:

Brian...

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. As for the 3 realms, I believe they are incredibly important. I use a slightly different form of them, but in context they are similar. For instance, attitude. I use mindset, specifically combat mindset. This has to do with understanding what is happening to properly produce the correct response. In order to achieve this we use the PADE cycle. Percieve, analysis, decide and execute. Using the military color code is very important, but not necessary.

As for fundamentals, I use marksmanship. Being able to hit under any conditions is my definition of marksmanship. This would also include whatever stance, grip, technique or ability to get the hits.

The technique is termed manipulations. Keeping the gun or guns running. This includes malfunctions, reloads and reduced light situations.

The last part and one that I have added, is the every subjective tactics. This really boils down to understanding the situation and then dealing with it in the most successful way. This could also have some trickle over from technique. How you apply the fundamentals/marksmanship can be largely driven by your tactics/technique.

It is good to know that I am not the only one who gets a little nervous before a COF. I use a heartrate monitor to keep track of my heartrate as I believe it is directly related to how well I will perform. I am able to determine when I get into my red zone and loose my ability to succeed. Now, that does not mean I can do anything about it, I am just building an experience base to better deal with the next situation. Thanks again.

Later,

benos:

Jeff,

Thanks for your points.

I've been taught (by the the sniper for Sri Lanka) and I have heard that once your heart rate gets above a certain rate, it's not possible to perform tasks that involve fine motor skills. I'm not sure what my heart rate was in a few high pressure situations I can remember, and I know I don't want to know, but I've shot some world class runs when my hands and legs were shaking so badly that all I could think of during the count down was, "I wonder if everyone behind me can see me shaking like this?" But, I never lost my determination to do what I was going to do.

be

bonedaddy:

Brian, your hands and legs were shaking. But, you shot extremely well. If the goal is to shoot well, and you achieved the goal, maybe it was good to have the adrenaline rush? I guess what I'm asking is, did you shoot well inspite of the shaking or because of it? I must ask this because I cannot seem to control when the "juice" is going to hit me. If I could understand it better and learn to master it......

Jeff Gonzales

B...

I have done lots of research concerning the heart rate and it's effect on performance. Think of your heart as a tachometer, you have the red zone, where you will probably blow your engine if you do not bring it down. We experience the same thing except it applies to our gross/fine motor skills performance. When our heart rates get above 145bpm we can expect to loose all of our fine motor skills, above the 160 and gross will be lost.

On the other side of the coin is too low of a hear rate. Though it may seem more likely to produce better results in combat situations you fail to tap into your primordial drive which, provides us with some awesome features, physiologically and psycologically. Too low would be below 100bpm. You are just not really getting the most your body has to offer, such as speed and power.

In order to get the most out of your high performance machince you must work the RPMs. It has been estimated that the optimum working level for our heart-rate is around double our resting heart rate. I generally have about a 60-65bpm resting heart rate and shoot (no pun intended) for about 120-130bpm for optimum performance. So, ideally I want to be between 100-140 give or take a few.

It is also important to discuss shock threshold. This is the level that we will all dip below, but must recover quickly to get out of the pit to optimum performance. The threshold is reflection of many different variables such as age, experience, genes and physical condition. Everybody will dip below, but what is important is how fast you recover. This part really does not apply to the competitive world of shooting, but definately in the combative.

Take care,

bonedaddy

Jeff, I have great respect for your knowledge. I read some of the Glock page for the first time last night and was planning to ask you a few things. I haven't studied this heart rate aspect at all, but I have wondered about it alot. So, if adrenaline makes the hands shake and the heart race, is it better in the long run

to work on controlling the rush and stemming it, or training to enhance the motor skills while staying in the correct RPM zone. Excellent analogy BTW.

benos:

bd,

On your first question, based on my experience, I would say that I shot well in spite of it. That level of body reaction is certainly distracting to say the least; I've shot many similar performances with much less juice flowing. It's quite a bit more fun that way.

On the juice hitting - I've learned that, as well, you don't ever really know when it's going to hit. I tried for MANY years to "learn to deal with it," before giving up completely. I now feel that trying to deal with makes it worse, and quite possibly ensures its return.

I look at it like this: I've made "alert, yet calm" a way of life, so I'm not doing anything different when at a match. If I feel, at the match as in life, that if I need to take some time to regain control, I just do it. That way, I dont' feel I'm doing something special to control some special situation. If, by way of experience, I don't feel a problem can be corrcted, or may not even need correcting, then I just ignore it. I've become pretty handy at this.

When you have a successful performance in spite of the conditions stated in my earlier post, it goes a long way toward the realization that maybe we don't know as much as we think we do. Fighting something/anything is often not the best approach. Often, by just saying "f**k it," the perceived problem doesn't pose the threat we thought it did. This is in opposition to our conditioning - that's why it's hard to trust. When I said "we don't know as much as we think we do," I also meant that we underestimate the power of clear intent, will, commitment, and determination - that we all posses but seldom harness.

A good teaching in Zen is - "going along with the flow" - as exemplified by the story of the monk who was on a boat that was sinking, far out into the ocean. He responded in his usual manner, he just say down in the lotus position and started breathing. The boat sunk - he just kept on breathing. Several days later he finally floated ashore and was found in a deep state of meditation - still only breathing.

Bruce Lee also illustrated this in response to an overwhelming situation in "Enter the Dragon."

be

bird:

Great post Brian (so what else is new...lol)

I guess i am kindof weird but during extreme stress situations that i have encountered in my life i seem to feel a sense of relaxed calm.

When the adrenline is pumping through my veins and my head is ready to explode i suddenly feel clear headed and i am totally relaxed.

What is so strange about this is that i am normally a very hyper person and have a hard time relaxing.

My mind and body is always going 100mph.

I am ready to dip my big toe into the competition arena and i am nervous as hell about it.

Hopefully i will experience this calm sensation when i step up to the line for the 1st time and start the competition stage of my shooting.

(for now i am still working on my free style platform and

working on the fundamentals so i can go beyond them)

It is amazing how my whole perspective about shooting has changed 180 degrees since i read Brians book and been visiting this forum.

I feel like i am starting over from scratch but this time i have a road map to where i want to go.

Maybe someday i will be a force to be reckoned with in the shooting sports because i am finally realizing that you don't just reach a level and then you are great, it is a continuous process......

The day i stop learning is the day i die...

Sorry for the rant but i kindof feel like a blind man that can start to see for the 1st time and i am excited...

Thanks for this forum and letting me express myself.

bonedaddy:

Brian and Jeff , I'm printing your last couple of posts to allow me to dwell on them. I just returned from the range and I am in a "pristine" state of mind.

Jeff, the heart rate as a "tachometer" is simply amazing. This opens new doors for me. I can't really verbalize what I saw yet, but you are totally correct!

Brian, that is exactly the kind of reply I was hoping for. Your 3rd paragraph, " the realization that we don't know as much as we think we do". That concept thrills me and scares me at the same time. Thanks guys, way cool!

benos:

bird,

I know you set a trap for me when you said - "I'm working on the fundamentals so i can go beyond them." (That's what my book said, right?) If you go beyond the fundamentals, where do you end up?

be

kellyn|:

Valhalla???

benos:

That's where the tough guys go when their opponent executes the fundamentals, right?

be

bird:

I know you set a trap for me when you said - "i'm working on the fundamentals so i can go beyond them." (That's what my book said, right?) If you go beyond the fundamentals, where do you end up?

1. to infinity and beyond...

2. straight to the top with a bullet...

3. to the benosphere........

I actually want to be able to shoot like i play the bass.

When i play music i don't think about it, i let my ears tell me what to do.

I want to be able to just shoot and just let my eyes tell me what to do..

My nightly dry-fire practice is akin to the many hours i spent on scales, chords etc..

Your book makes so much sense....

benos:

bird,

I understand about playing the bass. I've often felt, when watching an awesome musician play (like Steve Morse), that that is how we should shoot, or how we should do everything. (Or watching a Turkey Vulture soar.)

The problem with IPSC (and why it's such a great challenge) is that, unlike most endeavors, we feel as if we constantly have to rush to be effective.

be

bird:

I am working on BEing

as slow and deliberate

as fast as possible...

Me thinks Mr. Earp said it 1st..

Cirillo did it 1st...

Kevin:

I agree, when I took Todd's class, he told us fast is not fast, smooth is fast. That is what I have tried to do. Don't worry about the speed, just be as smooth as you can and the speed will come.

Kevin

Lord of Allusions:

What's the old Pennsylvania Dutch saying? "The hurrieder I go, the behinder I get".

I totally identify with what bird is talking about (and I play bass, too). I perform best when I focus on doing it right, rather than doing it fast, be it shooting or playing bass.

In fact, my self-defense drills are built around simple actions done with deliberacy, because in a life-or-death situation, it's better to take an extra half-second to draw that pistol and be ready to shoot than to panic and accidentally throw it into your attacker's hands.

I intend to carry that philosophy with me into competition (when I finally get there), and always consider myself to be a "newbie", no matter where I am. There's always more to learn, and always a better way.

benos:

Lord,

"In fact, my self-defense drills are built around simple actions done with deliberacy, because in a life-or-death situation, it's better to take an extra half-second to draw that pistol and be ready to shoot than to panic and accidentally throw it into your attacker's hands."

It has to be true because that's what Gene Hackman told the reporter in Clint Eastwoods "The Unforgiven." And Clint himself dished out that advice at the end of "The Outlaw Josey Whales."

be

Lord of Allusions:

Wow, what's really weird about this is that I've never seen either of those movies! (I don't watch too many movies)

I wonder if it sneaked into my subconsious somehow through cultural osmosis, or it's just a "truism".

bonedaddy:

Lord, I kinda like that idea about throwing my gun into the attackers hands. It's gotta be the last thing he'll expect!

Lord of Allusions:

Well, looks like the cat is out of the bag, because that is my defensive "shooting" strategy: do a Barney Fife by drawing my pistol too fast without a good grip, flinging it into my attacker's hands, then, while he fumbles with my pistol, kick him in the crotch and run like hell.

So far I haven't had to use it, but now that my secret's out, I guess I'm just going to have to do it "right" and actually shoot any poor fool stupid enough to put me in a "gravest extreme" situation.

Oh well, at least I'll be getting some top-notch instruction in a few days...

Lord of Allusions:

Oh yeah, and Brian's book ought to be arriving any minute now, right Brian?

Waiting by the mailbox,

LOA