Thanks to Ben Stoeger

[JD45]

The free drills on Ben's website are great tools for training. And we learned alot from just 2 of them today.

I have a good friend who shot for years, then stopped and started back. He is nearly 70 years old now, but is still quick with a pistol.

Neither of us hardly ever practice anymore, but today we shot Ben's Distance Changup drill. It was an eye opener. We broke it down on the timer, discussed things, and kept shooting it.

Towards the end, I noticed that my friend's fastest first shot to the 5yd. target was like 1.37. I asked him about what he focused on when he broke the shot. He said he always has to see a sharp front sight, at ANY distance. I told him that it was not necessary for 5yds. He disagreed.

After alot of talking, he tried the one-shot draw at 5yds. with a total target focus. Two or three shots were bad, but then he started hitting all A's. Times went like 1.22, 1.14, 1.09, etc.

Then he hit a .97. We discussed listening for the beginning of the beep, and getting a great reaction time.

After that came a .95 and .92! All in the A-zone!

At 70 yrs. old, this took less than 25 shots. I was amazed, and so was he.

We have now planned to practice together one Sunday a month and push each other. That was one of the best practice sessions I've ever witnessed.

[ParaGunner]

That's awesome!

[Ben Stoeger]

Thanks man!

[Flexmoney]

Is faster not to see the sight?

[JD45]

I think I know what you are saying, Flex. But shifting a clear focus from out there where the target is, even at 5yds., takes a tenth or three. At least for me it does. And at 70, wearing glasses, this guy went from 1.37 to .92 in 10 minutes of range time.

I've shot with him for years and see his draw times. They are almost never under 1.3 on even close targets.

I don't know, but the subject is worth discussion.

[motosapiens]

Is faster not to see the sight?

at 5 yards? absolutely.

[lugnut]

Is faster not to see the sight?

at 5 yards? absolutely.

Definitely don't need a sharp front sight! Seeing the sight anywhere in the A is probably good enough at 5 yards... for me at least. Unless there are NoShoots too.

Edited July 2, 2013 by lugnut

[Flexmoney]

I think I know what you are saying, Flex. But shifting a clear focus from out there where the target is, even at 5yds., takes a tenth or three. At least for me it does.

Don't be so sure.

[JD45]

I guess I'll have to use the timer and track some times then.

What I want to know is why? Is it because it makes calling a shot more reliable? If a guy can call a shot with a target focus, seeing just see an out-of focus slide stopped in the A-box, even if it is only hundrenths faster, why not do it?

What is the downside exactly?

[beltjones]

This thread needs more Steve Anderson.

[Flexmoney]

I guess I'll have to use the timer and track some times then.

What I want to know is why? Is it because it makes calling a shot more reliable? If a guy can call a shot with a target focus, seeing just see an out-of focus slide stopped in the A-box, even if it is only hundrenths faster, why not do it?

What is the downside exactly?

You suppose its possibly hundredths faster. I suppose it's not. For me, anyways.

The downside ... the vagueness of information/feedback. Imagine you get the same time either way*, but one way gives you better information than the other. Which do you want?

One might say that as long as they get enough information, then they are good. Hmmm... that is OK when things are going great. But, imagine that you have really good information and you get to really KNOW where the bullet is going to go...even as you are still pulling the trigger. You get better knowledge, and on top of that...you get greater confidence in that knowledge.

That knowledge...that confidence... that can allow you to get to the next thing faster (might not be so impostnat doing one shot dills) That knowing/confidence can also relieve tension in your shooting. Tension is usually slow.

* because mechanics

[Brian Payne]

At 54, I know about the speed of focus from target to front sight or the other way around. It is much slower now than it was in my youth.

I was lucky enough to take a class with Ben earlier this year. It was an unusual class for me because it seemed the instructor was asking as many questions as the student. A topic like this would come up, and the questions would start. Which do you think is faster? why do you think it would be faster? what other ways have you tried and what were the results? have you tried it on a timer to find out if it is actually faster? let's go try it.

It was interesting to me because during the class we would try the different ideas of the students, using a timer, and a little added stress, to find out which technique worked best for each student. It was surprising what the results were, and they were often different for each student. I guess proving the point that there really isn't one "THE" way, but there are lots of "A" ways to handle each shooting challenge. The good thing about the drills is that I came away from them with the confidence of knowing what worked best for me. This confidence assisted in keeping tension out of my shooting and allowed me to perform at my best.

[toothguy]

This thread needs more Steve Anderson.

Now that we've decided to call every shot, let's define what that means.

It means to know, as the gun fires, exactly where the bullet is going, and subsequently where it went.

It is seen from the sight picture as the gun fires. It means watching the dot or sights lift in recoil.

Think about it: If the sight picture is acceptable and you watch the front sight lift out of the notch, where could that bullet go except the target?

It's so liberating. Now you don't have to worriedly wonder if you "got all your hits." You don't have to listen for steel, and you certainly don't have to stand there and wait for it to fall.

(Wait a minute, all this sounds like it might improve stage times! Is it possible that Accuracy IS Speed?)

When I'm really shooting my best, I can actually score the stage from "unload and show clear." I can literally tell the RO, "I'm down 3 charlies on T2, T5, and T7."

And you can do it too. Start at 5 feet. Watch the sights lift and KNOW where the bullet went. Move back to 15 feet. Watch the sights lift and KNOW where the bullet went. Back to 30.

A great shooter KNOWS where the bullet goes.

(Uh-oh, that sounds like positive thinking at work!)

Now, as with all serious training techniques, there is a period of acclimation during which overall performance can decline. This is normal and will not last very long. it happens because when we make a change, it takes our brain and body a little time to unlearn the old and learn the new.

Never slow down, Just see more.

Now get to work.

And stay classy.

Thanks for stopping by.

Now get to work.

Tomorrow we'll talk about "level of participation" and goals.

Fake it til you make, stay classy, and thanks for stopping by.

Now get to work.

[Flexmoney]

It was interesting to me because during the class we would try the different ideas of the students, using a timer, and a little added stress, to find out which technique worked best for each student. It was surprising what the results were, and they were often different for each student. I guess proving the point that there really isn't one "THE" way, but there are lots of "A" ways to handle each shooting challenge. The good thing about the drills is that I came away from them with the confidence of knowing what worked best for me. This confidence assisted in keeping tension out of my shooting and allowed me to perform at my best.

Are you still doing it the same way, or are you constantly testing. Another way to ask... are you static or evolving?

[sperman]

How about a little Enos as well?

I found, that even on super close targets, I'd do my best shooting at my fastest speed while seeing a razor sharp front sight.

Maybe think of Type 1 as just a "definition," or a "possibility," rather than something that should done.

be

[lugnut]

I guess I'll have to use the timer and track some times then.

What I want to know is why? Is it because it makes calling a shot more reliable? If a guy can call a shot with a target focus, seeing just see an out-of focus slide stopped in the A-box, even if it is only hundrenths faster, why not do it?

What is the downside exactly?

Yeah the timer doesn't lie. I'm guessing for most of us, certainly us with older eyes, it would take a little extra time to get sharp front sight focus. But don't lie to yourself... if it's faster to get target focus (seeing maybe the outline of the slide or a blurry front sight) make sure your hits aren't suffering. I can hose close targets but it doesn't do any good to get Charlies on them!

Matter of fact it might have been Flex himself that once said something like this: " If you are going to drop points- do it on the harder targets, not the easy ones. I look at the easy targets as if they are free points." I think it's close enough to get the point across.

[lugnut]

How about a little Enos as well?

I found, that even on super close targets, I'd do my best shooting at my fastest speed while seeing a razor sharp front sight.

Maybe think of Type 1 as just a "definition," or a "possibility," rather than something that should done.

be

I actually find this to be a tad bit of a contradiction from his book. If this is the case... why ever use anything other than a sharp front sight focus?

[sperman]

Here is the thread that was taken from. It is very similar to what is being discussed here. I don't want to speak for Brian, buy my take away from it is that Brian's opinion had changed from when he had written the book.

Here is another quote from that thread, which I think confirms your question above (why ever use anything other than a sharp front sight focus?)

In the last few years I was competing, even on very close shots, I found I shot faster, more accurately, and more consistently if I was right on the sights when the shots broke.

be

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=79483

[JD45]

Read type 1 focus in the book. It does not call for a target or sight focus, only pure index and feel.

[benos]

How about a little Enos as well?

I found, that even on super close targets, I'd do my best shooting at my fastest speed while seeing a razor sharp front sight.

Maybe think of Type 1 as just a "definition," or a "possibility," rather than something that should done.

be

That is still my current feeling.

Here is the thread that was taken from. It is very similar to what is being discussed here. I don't want to speak for Brian, buy my take away from it is that Brian's opinion had changed from when he had written the book.

Here is another quote from that thread, which I think confirms your question above (why ever use anything other than a sharp front sight focus?)

In the last few years I was competing, even on very close shots, I found I shot faster, more accurately, and more consistently if I was right on the sights when the shots broke.

be

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=79483

I wouldn't change anything in that either.

Read type 1 focus in the book. It does not call for a target or sight focus, only pure index and feel.

That is correct. But the book was published some years before my above two comments.

There are many top guys that shoot "Type 1" targets by looking right at the target. But I found (after publishing the book) that that did not work as well for me.

The thing to do - never stop experimenting until all doubts have been removed.

[Supermoto]

The downside ... the vagueness of information/feedback. Imagine you get the same time either way*, but one way gives you better information than the other. Which do you want?

One might say that as long as they get enough information, then they are good. Hmmm... that is OK when things are going great. But, imagine that you have really good information and you get to really KNOW where the bullet is going to go...even as you are still pulling the trigger. You get better knowledge, and on top of that...you get greater confidence in that knowledge.

That knowledge...that confidence... that can allow you to get to the next thing faster (might not be so impostnat doing one shot dills) That knowing/confidence can also relieve tension in your shooting. Tension is usually slow.

* because mechanics

I get better and more information with a target focus. The further/ harder the shot, the better it works for me. When I focus on the front sight, I lose the target,. A 12 inch plate at 100 yards. I lose it completely. I have to lower the gun, find the target, then bring the sight back to where I think they should be. With a target focus. I can see that plate and only have to worry about lining up soft sights.

I find it much easier to line up soft sight and know where they are on a crisp target than crisp sights and not know exactly where they are.

Edited July 3, 2013 by Supermoto

[shtr3]

Thanks ben. Also. Thanks for putting your knowledge and thoughts out there. I own 3 shooter training books. Ben Stoeger -2. Brian Enos -1. All 3 are helpful in their own respect. Thanks both of you.

[grapemeister]

What seems to work for me is a sight picture only, or soft focus as one poster put it, on targets out to about 10 yards, rather than a sharp focus on the front sight when shooting at speed. It also seems like on occasion I can get away with it on targets out to about 15 yards. But, and maybe I’m just kidding myself, I don’t feel like it’s really a target focus when I do that.

Just seeing the sights, and not a sharp front sight focus, only seems to work when I’m shooting at speed. When I’m just group shooting, I still go back to seeing a sharp front sight focus.

Having said all of that, is it possible that I’m using a sharp front sight focus when shooting close targets at speed, and maybe I’ve just learned to not waste so much time doing it? I’ve gotten use to it, in other words, and I’m focusing on the front sight faster, and then moving on, rather than getting out the microscope and studying the damn thing for any length of time.

I hope that makes since. It really is a question I ask myself.

[JD45]

For any new shooters reading this thread, take into account who these ideas are coming from first.

Flex is a GM. Benos is ....well... Brian Enos. I am like almost B class in production and a paper Master in IDPA(so what I do may not be advisable). The guys on top have seen and tried much more than the rest of us.

I don't know if there is a right or wrong, but listing to a GM is a good start.

I've read that years ago our host of this site was made to believe the Weaver stance was the only way. But he and others changed that.

[Ben Stoeger]

I don't know if there is a right or wrong, but listing to a GM is a good start.

There is a score, you figured a way to make yours go up. Never stop figuring stuff out.