How much do top GM's shoot

[DonovanM]

Breaking these numbers down a bit on the proverbial back of the envelope:

Assuming that you're shooting 9mm, and shooting 150k rounds/year, 5 days a week, 50 weeks/year=600 rounds/day.

I'm reloading 9mm at $0.124/round, so $74.40/day. 150k*.124/50wks= $357.69/week, $1550/month , $18,600/year. Of course if you're sponsored, the equation changes.

If you can reload 1000 rounds/hour on your 1050, you spend 3 hours/week, 12 hours/month reloading 12k rounds/month.

Assume you spend another 3 hours/month sorting, tumbling, prepping brass. (Is that accurate?) That's 15 hours/month.

How long does it take to shoot 600 rounds each day? I'm new, and making an uneducated guess of < 60 seconds for 20 shots in a stage, so ~30 minutes each day plus 1/2 hour setup/cleanup, so roughly 1 hour/day. Travel time to and fro the range may add another hour. That's 2 hours/day, 10 hours/week, 40 hours/month.

Add in 2 matches/month with 5 hours at the match and 1 hour drive time each way, you're at 14 hours/month.

How much time do you spend practicing dry fire? Again, I'm new. Help me out here. People here advocate spending at least one hour/day. Assuming 1.5 hours for dedication, you end up with 7.5 hours/week, 30 hours/month.

Totals:

$297.60/mo, $18,600/yr

99 hours/mo, 1188 hrs/yr

That's a serious commitment.

And if you believe the "10,000 hours to reach mastery" thing - which I think is a simple misunderstanding of what Gladwell actually said - that's 9 years to get to the top with at that schedule.

I don't think it actually takes 9 years, and I think you can get away with a more relaxed schedule. But that's just me.

[bigfish]

I would doubt that there is anyone out there that actually cares and knows what they are doing that could shoot 100,000 rounds or more a year and not be a top shooter.

[bigfish]

Breaking these numbers down a bit on the proverbial back of the envelope:

Assuming that you're shooting 9mm, and shooting 150k rounds/year, 5 days a week, 50 weeks/year=600 rounds/day.

I'm reloading 9mm at $0.124/round, so $74.40/day. 150k*.124/50wks= $357.69/week, $1550/month , $18,600/year. Of course if you're sponsored, the equation changes.

If you can reload 1000 rounds/hour on your 1050, you spend 3 hours/week, 12 hours/month reloading 12k rounds/month.

Assume you spend another 3 hours/month sorting, tumbling, prepping brass. (Is that accurate?) That's 15 hours/month.

How long does it take to shoot 600 rounds each day? I'm new, and making an uneducated guess of < 60 seconds for 20 shots in a stage, so ~30 minutes each day plus 1/2 hour setup/cleanup, so roughly 1 hour/day. Travel time to and fro the range may add another hour. That's 2 hours/day, 10 hours/week, 40 hours/month.

Add in 2 matches/month with 5 hours at the match and 1 hour drive time each way, you're at 14 hours/month.

How much time do you spend practicing dry fire? Again, I'm new. Help me out here. People here advocate spending at least one hour/day. Assuming 1.5 hours for dedication, you end up with 7.5 hours/week, 30 hours/month.

Totals:

$297.60/mo, $18,600/yr

99 hours/mo, 1188 hrs/yr

That's a serious commitment.

And if you believe the "10,000 hours to reach mastery" thing - which I think is a simple misunderstanding of what Gladwell actually said - that's 9 years to get to the top with at that schedule.

I don't think it actually takes 9 years, and I think you can get away with a more relaxed schedule. But that's just me.

Didn't K.C. make GM and 14 or something like that? 9 years means he started training at 5 years old then

[DonovanM]

Didn't K.C. make GM and 14 or something like that? 9 years means he started training at 5 years old then

Well, making GM isn't anywhere near as difficult as winning the World Shoot, which Eric did when he was what, 3 years older than that?

[a matt]

Most GM's that we know of KC, Dave, Even Tori (not a GM put sponsored still) and many others get ammo from Atlanta Arms. Blake M. loads his on a Camdex reloader. It's a cool $40k for that reloader. Anyway ammo is not one of their issues. I really think its time and time management. IMHO.

BJ said something about, his guns wear out at about 150.000. I wonder of that's in a years time?

[Henry625]

Very interesting assessment of what is involved, but if I may add one variable that is not considered, "PURE TALENT"! As with many sports, an inherent talent must be present to accomplish the amazing. Some people are just born for something, I.E., Michael Jordon, Tiger Woods, Jerry Miculek. Granted, practice keeps the knife sharp so to speak, but you have to have quality steel to start with.

True athletes are the culmination of the correct genes needed to perform a task. I think that even IF I could find the time and money, I still wouldn't be a Dave Sevigney, Todd Jarrett, and so on. Granted, I would be better than I am now (B class), but I wouldn't be a shooting great in the sport.

Wow, after looking at the financial part of this, I guess I am lucky to be where I am at now on my budget.

Thanks for the thread, it was interesting for sure.

[a matt]

I agree with Henery625. You make great points. About the only way I'll ever beat KC at a steel match, is with a bat. And I don't want to do that so I'll just watch and learn! Lol

[grapemeister]

Last fall I read a very good book " Talent is Overrated." I'm no expert, but over the last 7 or 8 months I've studied the subject, read a lot articles, watched a lot of interviews, and eventually I changed my mind about what it takes to become a top performer in any field. It really comes down to pure dedication. I'll never forget some of the TV commercials the Olympic athletes did this last summer. Lines like, I haven't had desert in 3 years; I haven't read a novel in 4 years; I haven't been to the movies with my friends in 3 years", etc, etc. Sure, in our sport it takes money, but all the money in the world still won't get you to the top. Pure determination, and dedication, couple with highly focused deliberate practice is what gets you there.

[lugnut]

Last fall I read a very good book " Talent is Overrated." I'm no expert, but over the last 7 or 8 months I've studied the subject, read a lot articles, watched a lot of interviews, and eventually I changed my mind about what it takes to become a top performer in any field. It really comes down to pure dedication. I'll never forget some of the TV commercials the Olympic athletes did this last summer. Lines like, I haven't had desert in 3 years; I haven't read a novel in 4 years; I haven't been to the movies with my friends in 3 years", etc, etc. Sure, in our sport it takes money, but all the money in the world still won't get you to the top. Pure determination, and dedication, couple with highly focused deliberate practice is what gets you there.

Yep.

An interviewer with Wayne Gretsky:

"You must be unnaturally gifted..."

Gretsky replied:

"Yes I am. I spent years of my life learning these skills...."

While we are reading forums- there are people training.... and training... and training.

Edited March 11, 2013 by lugnut

[mhop]

Really, I think making GM is where most all the ammo is spent. Once you have made it, I'm sure it take a lot of ammo to maintain the 95 plus %. But i would think nowhere what it takes to get the 95% IMHO

i can say that is not right all

[redwoods]

Last fall I read a very good book " Talent is Overrated." I'm no expert, but over the last 7 or 8 months I've studied the subject, read a lot articles, watched a lot of interviews, and eventually I changed my mind about what it takes to become a top performer in any field. It really comes down to pure dedication. I'll never forget some of the TV commercials the Olympic athletes did this last summer. Lines like, I haven't had desert in 3 years; I haven't read a novel in 4 years; I haven't been to the movies with my friends in 3 years", etc, etc. Sure, in our sport it takes money, but all the money in the world still won't get you to the top. Pure determination, and dedication, couple with highly focused deliberate practice is what gets you there.

I don't care how much you practice and dedicate yourself, you will never be able to defend Michael Jordan one on one. Quickness is not learned, you either have it or you don't. Target transitions and movement to positions take quick hands and quick feet. Most of the athletes running the 100 meter dash either have natural speed, or they are not qualifying for the final race. You can learn how to control and make your movements more accurate, but there are some things you can never make better by repetition or learning. Quickness (speed) is one of them. Take a 75 year old and a 25 year old and see who has faster reflexes. Even with years of training, the 75 year old's reflexes will be slower.

[a matt]

Really, I think making GM is where most all the ammo is spent. Once you have made it, I'm sure it take a lot of ammo to maintain the 95 plus %. But i would think nowhere what it takes to get the 95% IMHO

i can say that is not right all

It was an opinion, I would like to hear more. Thanks

[waktasz]

Last fall I read a very good book " Talent is Overrated." I'm no expert, but over the last 7 or 8 months I've studied the subject, read a lot articles, watched a lot of interviews, and eventually I changed my mind about what it takes to become a top performer in any field. It really comes down to pure dedication. I'll never forget some of the TV commercials the Olympic athletes did this last summer. Lines like, I haven't had desert in 3 years; I haven't read a novel in 4 years; I haven't been to the movies with my friends in 3 years", etc, etc. Sure, in our sport it takes money, but all the money in the world still won't get you to the top. Pure determination, and dedication, couple with highly focused deliberate practice is what gets you there.

I don't care how much you practice and dedicate yourself, you will never be able to defend Michael Jordan one on one. Quickness is not learned, you either have it or you don't. Target transitions and movement to positions take quick hands and quick feet. Most of the athletes running the 100 meter dash either have natural speed, or they are not qualifying for the final race. You can learn how to control and make your movements more accurate, but there are some things you can never make better by repetition or learning. Quickness (speed) is one of them. Take a 75 year old and a 25 year old and see who has faster reflexes. Even with years of training, the 75 year old's reflexes will be slower.

Cop out.

[Croomrider]

Last fall I read a very good book " Talent is Overrated." I'm no expert, but over the last 7 or 8 months I've studied the subject, read a lot articles, watched a lot of interviews, and eventually I changed my mind about what it takes to become a top performer in any field. It really comes down to pure dedication. I'll never forget some of the TV commercials the Olympic athletes did this last summer. Lines like, I haven't had desert in 3 years; I haven't read a novel in 4 years; I haven't been to the movies with my friends in 3 years", etc, etc. Sure, in our sport it takes money, but all the money in the world still won't get you to the top. Pure determination, and dedication, couple with highly focused deliberate practice is what gets you there.

I don't care how much you practice and dedicate yourself, you will never be able to defend Michael Jordan one on one. Quickness is not learned, you either have it or you don't. Target transitions and movement to positions take quick hands and quick feet. Most of the athletes running the 100 meter dash either have natural speed, or they are not qualifying for the final race. You can learn how to control and make your movements more accurate, but there are some things you can never make better by repetition or learning. Quickness (speed) is one of them. Take a 75 year old and a 25 year old and see who has faster reflexes. Even with years of training, the 75 year old's reflexes will be slower.

Cop out.

It takes BOTH!

[lugnut]

Last fall I read a very good book " Talent is Overrated." I'm no expert, but over the last 7 or 8 months I've studied the subject, read a lot articles, watched a lot of interviews, and eventually I changed my mind about what it takes to become a top performer in any field. It really comes down to pure dedication. I'll never forget some of the TV commercials the Olympic athletes did this last summer. Lines like, I haven't had desert in 3 years; I haven't read a novel in 4 years; I haven't been to the movies with my friends in 3 years", etc, etc. Sure, in our sport it takes money, but all the money in the world still won't get you to the top. Pure determination, and dedication, couple with highly focused deliberate practice is what gets you there.

I don't care how much you practice and dedicate yourself, you will never be able to defend Michael Jordan one on one. Quickness is not learned, you either have it or you don't. Target transitions and movement to positions take quick hands and quick feet. Most of the athletes running the 100 meter dash either have natural speed, or they are not qualifying for the final race. You can learn how to control and make your movements more accurate, but there are some things you can never make better by repetition or learning. Quickness (speed) is one of them. Take a 75 year old and a 25 year old and see who has faster reflexes. Even with years of training, the 75 year old's reflexes will be slower.

Cop out.

lol. Sure there are limits to what people can achieve based on their body structures and eyes and maybe other things. But Michael Jordan isn't just a top athlete- he's one of the best ever. He worked his ass of to get to the top. I think if more people stopped looking at "reasons" why they can't compete at the top levels and instead focus on how they CAN.. they would be better off. I'm almost 50 years old and I KNOW if I worked hard enough I could make GM... maybe not the top 10 or even 100 GMs but you'll never know your limits unless you work you ass off and try. Every time I make excuses I feel like I'm cheating myself of what I could be.

[simmons]

Last fall I read a very good book " Talent is Overrated." I'm no expert, but over the last 7 or 8 months I've studied the subject, read a lot articles, watched a lot of interviews, and eventually I changed my mind about what it takes to become a top performer in any field. It really comes down to pure dedication. I'll never forget some of the TV commercials the Olympic athletes did this last summer. Lines like, I haven't had desert in 3 years; I haven't read a novel in 4 years; I haven't been to the movies with my friends in 3 years", etc, etc. Sure, in our sport it takes money, but all the money in the world still won't get you to the top. Pure determination, and dedication, couple with highly focused deliberate practice is what gets you there.

Yep.

An interviewer with Wayne Gretsky:

"You must be unnaturally gifted..."

Gretsky replied:

"Yes I am. I spent years of my life learning these skills...."

While we are reading forums- there are people training.... and training... and training.

Best post yet.

The only limits that exist are the one's we create for ourselves, stay away from the word "can't".

Edited March 16, 2013 by simmons

[rutilate]

"You can be anyone you want to be." Unless you just don't have the natural talent to do so and then you'd be better off doing something else.

In 2001, Marcus Buckingham and Donald Clifton of Gallup put the lie to this popular fallacy with in their book, "Now Discover Your Strengths." Everyone has tendencies or traits that make certain things come absolutely naturally to them--things that seem so easy that they can't quite understand why everyone else around them can't do as well as they themselves can. The core tenet is this: you'll go much farther if you focus on improving your strengths than spending inordinate amounts of time trying to overcome your weaknesses. Tiger Woods' strength is his long game. His trainer spent just enough time practicing extrication from sand traps so that TIger wasn't destroyed by a weakness, and then spent the rest of the time working on his strength so that he didn't end up in the sand traps in the first place.

Sure, you can be anyone you want to be. Or you can be stellar at something that plays to your strengths. This applies to a broad career (Michael Jordan may well have sucked at being a CPA, or even a baseball player), or areas within a career (a lawyer may hate business development and join a firm so they don't need to do so).

So, to become a champion shooter (or anything else for that matter), you need to determine whether or not you have some modicum of talent in shooting. Having determined that you aren't wasting your time on a weakness, then you can dedicate yourself 110% to excelling.

[Steve Anderson]

When i was about 12, through a series of very strange and interesting events, my best friend became my stepbrother. He expressed an interest in playing guitar, so his mother bought him a 3 pickup silverburst Les Paul, and taught him a simple blues riff, both of which he taunted me with daily.

I similarly (and perhaps immaturely) expressed an interest in playing guitar, so my mother went to a pawn shop where the sign in the window said "Free guitar with the purchase of $12 guitar pick" and took them up on the offer. I learned my stepbrother's blues riff and then added a note or two while he was outside practicing soccer.

The Les Paul didn't get out of the case much after that. Maye that's one reason I prefer Strats. Hmmmmm.

I guess the point is... if you really want it, you can't help but get there. You WILL find a way. It's inevitable.

Another way to think of it: A way to get closer to a goal is to behave as if you've already acheived it.

And I'm not a big believer in natural talent. (I have my reasons)

Sure, there are predispositions that will show up (or be revealed) during training, but they will usually be accompanied by a correlating natural weakness.

So, what are we to do?

My advice would be to DECIDE what you really want.

[pjb45]

Edison is first reported as saying "Genius is one per cent inspiration, ninety-nine per cent perspiration" sometime around 1902, in the September 1932 edition of Harper's Monthly Magazine.

Biology does contribute to one's potential but it does not necessarily define it. There are anomalies in every activity, science, sports, etc. There are Rob Leathams, Tiger Woods, T. Edisons but these are outliers.

The great book on Outliers talks about the CA program to monitor children that were tested to be geniuses. Over the years they were interviewed and CA concluded there were three basic results; those who did not achieve much, those who lead ordinary but somewhat successful lives, and those who put their gifts to work. The point being, even if an individual is gifted they have to work at it, and there a many more people who are not geniuses who have achieve great success from hard work, luck, etc.

[motosapiens]

Totals:

$1550/mo, $18,600/yr

99 hours/mo, 1188 hrs/yr

That's a serious commitment.

It's alot cheaper and less time consuming than racing motorcycles seriously.

Regarding natural gifts vs hard work..... I understand why it's important for some people to believe that their success is *only* the result of hard work, but they are deluded. Hard work + good luck + natural abilities/talent + a constructive attitude.

[lugnut]

And I'm not a big believer in natural talent. (I have my reasons)

Steve- you can't leave us hanging with this statement. Please explain.

[DonovanM]

And I'm not a big believer in natural talent. (I have my reasons)

Steve- you can't leave us hanging with this statement. Please explain.

There are certainly genetic predispositions for "athleticism" (like greater percentages of fast-twitch muscle fibers, etc) that have in essence become prerequisites to competing at the Olympic level in events like the high jump, 100m dash or endurance races. This is the only realm where I think the term "innate talent" can be used.

For sports that rely heavily on hand-eye coordination, I do not think it can be argued that there are differentiable genetic markers or predispositions that would give one an advantage over their peers. I don't think anyone is born more capable or less capable of shooting free throws, with the exception of people with vision problems or neurological disorders or something.

I think the ability to shoot free throws in a basketball game is essentially 100% hinged upon that person's learned abilities to manage stress under pressure, and the amount of hours they put in with their efficient practice routine to learn the mechanics.

Lebron James started playing basketball when he was 9 years old. KC Eusebio, Max Michel and Eric Grauffel all started shooting when they were very young and were coached by their parents. Jan Zelezny wasn't born with the ability to set a world record in the javelin throw that has stood for 17 years now - both of his parents were javelin throwers. Valentino Rossi was winning races at 11 years old, and his dad raced motorcycles. There's a theme here. These people have simply put in more work over a longer period of time than most others, and their parents, being of varying degrees familiar with the sports they introduced their kids to, helped them practice extremely efficiently.

No one has ever picked up a handgun for the first time and shot a C class classifier. In the same vein, not everyone who's put 200,000 rounds downrange is a GM. You have to practice efficiently and a lot.

[motosapiens]

I've been a competitive athlete all my life, in a variety of sports, and I've seen people put in the same amount of effort and dedication and thought and have dramatically different results. It's clear to even a casual observer of sports that some people just have better balance, or better vision, or better focus, and those traits are obvious when they are still beginners. In most any field of human endeavor you can find intuitive and gifted people, to whom things come easily, and many of them achieve great things. You can find less gifted people who work undeniably harder and some of them achieve great things. On those rare occasions when you get someone gifted who also works abnormally hard, you get legends like eddy merckx, michael jordan, wayne gretzky, and ricky carmichael.

Not all successful people want to believe that genetic/environmental luck is a significant part of their success. I understand that. So they lie to themselves.

[rutilate]

In most any field of human endeavor you can find intuitive and gifted people, to whom things come easily, and many of them achieve great things. You can find less gifted people who work undeniably harder and some of them achieve great things. On those rare occasions when you get someone gifted who also works abnormally hard, you get legends like eddy merckx, michael jordan, wayne gretzky, and ricky carmichael.

Very well said.

[kevin c]

I am nowhere near making even Master, let alone becoming a world beater, given my commitment level and innate talents, but I will say this - if you want to, no matter what you are starting with in terms of time, talent and resources, you can always improve.

Works for me