Do master competitors point-shoot?

[grapemeister]

This forum is awesome!

Troller! But, yes it is. Although, I may disagree with a point of view, I still take it into consideration, and ponder the idea. Learned a heck of a lot from the forums.

[jnr88]

Believe in the Great Ones book he mentions Rob Leatham was the first really top GM to admit he doesn't always use a front sight focus. A target focus is all he needed for many targets. It would seem simple enough to practice and verify your results. I recently took a class with a highly ranked shooter and we did target focused drills at 7, 15 and 23 yds (range limit) There were 4 of us in the class and we were all surprised how quickly we were able to shoot fairly well and very rapidly. My fellow classmates were experienced B level competitors.

[Cold Absolute Zero]

I am a new and low M, so I can shoot M classifiers, but it'll take some (a lot) work before I can really be competitive at a big match within my classification. That said I think there are times where a perfect or even good sight picture is more than what is necessary to make the shot. An open Tgt at less than or equal to 7 yards is a pretty easy target, and if you are shooting major you don't risk that much if you catch a C or two so using your index, target focus or just the back of your slide may be viable. Also whether the cof is biased towards speed or accuracy matters too.

To answer the OPs question from my personal experiences there are times where i don't use a complete sight picture though i hesitate to call it point shooting as i am using my index, target focus, muzzle awareness or a combination of all 3 to see / feel what i need to make the shot. I feel that to get to the point where you can consistently turn 85% or above classifiers, your index and mechanics need to be pretty good. Throw in a partial, no shoot, movement or awkward position definitely need to be keen on your sights and calling your shots. Fwiw I know of atleast 1 very successful prod GM who uses pure target focus on classifiers like the el prez.

Just my humble .02

CAZ

[Magnus DUX]

I just had a class with a top production GM. He uses a target focus for anything 10 yards and less. He sees the sights, but the focus is on the target. His choice of yardage was based upon how much the sights could be misaligned and still produce an "A" along with how well he could see the sights while maintaining a target focus.

I just had the same class

The eye opener was that at 10 yards the front sight being all the way to the left or right of the rear sights notch would produce an A hit. Even more so in vertical alignment. So target focus with blurry sights somewhat aligned are enough for a fast and accurate shots at that distance.

Edited November 24, 2013 by Magnus DUX

[lugnut]

An open Tgt at less than or equal to 7 yards is a pretty easy target, and if you are shooting major you don't risk that much if you catch a C or two so using your index, target focus or just the back of your slide may be viable.

CAZ- I too am a newer Master level shooter... however I think the statement above might be limiting for you in the long run. Don't give up As for Cs on close targets- ever. I think it was Flex that talked about this. He looks at the close targets as "free" As.... get them all, if you give up As... let it be on the tougher targets! I get much more pissed if I get Cs on 5 yard targets as compared to 10 yard partial or 20 yard open targets.

I agree with the whole idea that a sharp front sight focus isn't needed for close shots but I also think it really doesn't "cost" too much time to still use your front sights... albeit maybe not a sharp front sight focus. Whatever it takes to get As 99 percent of the time on those close ones...

[gearguywb]

Just say NO to point shooting

The true question is "How much of a sight picture do I need to make THIS shot"?

The sight picture for a 5 yard open target is much different than the one for a 20 yard head box only.

[Nimitz]

+1, at 3 yds probably seeing the muzzle of the gun in the center of the A zone is enough of a sight picture but this is still a sight picture, in point shooting there is no sight picture, shooting from the hip is point shooting.

Always, always, always have the appropriate sight picture for the target in question and spend the time necessary in training to figure this out.

Go give a M/GM class shooter a list of targets at varying distances and difficulty and he'll rattle off in quick succession exactly what sight picture he needs to make each shot because he's spent the time in training to figure it out ...

[CHA-LEE]

You can shoot using your sights just as fast as NOT using your sights while point shooting. Calling your shots is required to effectively know that the shot is good, bad or marginal. Being able to call your shots allows you to transition to the next target or exit the shooting position way faster and more aggressively because you KNOW that the last shot on the previous target is good.

Every time I did point shooting (target focus) verses a sight focus my times were close but my hits while point shooting were always worse than using my sights. Can I rely on my Index or Natural Point of Aim to sling rounds in the direction of a target while point shooting? Yes. Is doing that more consistent than simply using my sights? NO. You need points to divide by your time. Point shooting is a sure way of collecting a bunch of crappy points.

In the top end of this game, the stage times of the top dogs are usually within a second. Its the points captured that separates who wins or loses. Look at the results of most major matches, there is almost always a B, A, or M classification shooter that is able to shoot a stage in the same time as the top dogs, but their points are horrible. That is usually because the lower classified shooters are point shooting the stage and simply slinging lead at targets in a hurry and hoping they get their hits. Some times these guys hook up and knock it out of the park. But the majority of the time it ends up being a train wreck.

Edited November 28, 2013 by CHA-LEE

[eric nielsen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3U33hUoxbs - Shannon Smith, USPSA Limited Champion.

The whole premise of these guys' youtube channel, The Shooter's Mindset, is freaking brilliant. There are people who succeed who never let anyone else go crawl around in their head and see what's in there. The interview subjects on TSM are your opportunity to do just that.

I would watch the entire interview, there are more than a few golden nuggets in there, stuff I didn't know and I've shot with Smitty since 2000. The topic of this thread shows up in particular after the 20-minute mark but later he also speaks about having the confidence to commit to a shot guided only by index (if your index is that solid).

For whatever reason around 1996-97 it became "common knowledge" that the way to shoot irons "as fast as" with a dot was to elevate your front sight up out of the notch, but centered side-side. Then shoot that way while only looking at the targets. Some, not all, of the practitioners of this realized your probable-hit zone opened up tremendously; in other words w/a dot or w/lined-up sights you could be pretty sure of a bullet impacting within a couple inches of your intended spot, With above-the-notch target focus, that might go to a hit circle with a diameter of 10 or 12 inches at 13-15 yards out. The 97 Limited Nationals had lots and lots of close targets plastered with no-shoots or hard cover. Not a single A-zone was covered (except on Six Chickens) but the number of penalty shots fired by Super Squad shooters was quite high that year. So maybe like other "common knowledge" items (like Brian's 'that was a good stage for a dot' story) this one faded away because it was flawed.

Edited November 28, 2013 by eric nielsen

[gearguywb]

You can shoot using your sights just as fast as NOT using your sights while point shooting. Calling your shots is required to effectively know that the shot is good, bad or marginal. Being able to call your shots allows you to transition to the next target or exit the shooting position way faster and more aggressively because you KNOW that the last shot on the previous target is good.

Every time I did point shooting (target focus) verses a sight focus my times were close but my hits while point shooting were always worse than using my sights. Can I rely on my Index or Natural Point of Aim to sling rounds in the direction of a target while point shooting? Yes. Is doing that more consistent than simply using my sights? NO. You need points to divide by your time. Point shooting is a sure way of collecting a bunch of crappy points.

In the top end of this game, the stage times of the top dogs are usually within a second. Its the points captured that separates who wins or loses. Look at the results of most major matches, there is almost always a B, A, or M classification shooter that is able to shoot a stage in the same time as the top dogs, but their points are horrible. That is usually because the lower classified shooters are point shooting the stage and simply slinging lead at targets in a hurry and hoping they get their hits. Some times these guys hook up and knock it out of the park. But the majority of the time it ends up being a train wreck.

Nailed it.

[flack jacket]

You can shoot using your sights just as fast as NOT using your sights while point shooting. Calling your shots is required to effectively know that the shot is good, bad or marginal. Being able to call your shots allows you to transition to the next target or exit the shooting position way faster and more aggressively because you KNOW that the last shot on the previous target is good.

Every time I did point shooting (target focus) verses a sight focus my times were close but my hits while point shooting were always worse than using my sights. Can I rely on my Index or Natural Point of Aim to sling rounds in the direction of a target while point shooting? Yes. Is doing that more consistent than simply using my sights? NO. You need points to divide by your time. Point shooting is a sure way of collecting a bunch of crappy points.

In the top end of this game, the stage times of the top dogs are usually within a second. Its the points captured that separates who wins or loses. Look at the results of most major matches, there is almost always a B, A, or M classification shooter that is able to shoot a stage in the same time as the top dogs, but their points are horrible. That is usually because the lower classified shooters are point shooting the stage and simply slinging lead at targets in a hurry and hoping they get their hits. Some times these guys hook up and knock it out of the park. But the majority of the time it ends up being a train wreck.

Nailed it.

Agree!

Perhaps the interpretation of "point shooting" is similar what others know as " pure indexing" on target with minimal(if any visual input from sights) and 2 yanks of the trigger...

[CHA-LEE]

The point in this game is to hone your gun handling skills to a point of effortless efficiency. You should dry and live fire enough to burn in the ability to have the sights properly aligned every time the gun is up between your eyes and the target. When shooters train themselves to this level they think that since the sights are already aligned when the gun gets fully mounted that you can stop using them. This is when the point shooting starts to happen. Some how you think that since the sights are usually aligned pretty good when you put the gun in front of your face that you can assume that they will stay aligned while shooting then not even need to use them. This leads you down the path of having a hard target focus while shooting and it usually leads to looking for holes to show up in the target while shooting to confirm your hits. Looking for holes is a huge waste of time. If you are waiting for a hole to show up or to hear a "Ding" on steel or see the steel move then your transition to the next target is significantly impacted in a negative way.

If you practice enough to have the sights present themselves in an aligned state every time you bring the gun up that is good. Take advantage of that and USE the sights to call your shots. Knowing that your shot is good by processing the sights allows you to do the next thing instantly after calling the shot. This is a key skill that separates most GM's from lower classification shooters.

The point shoot issue is very similar to reloads. You can call your "Shot" on a reload or you can point shoot the magazine into the gun with mixed results. I have practiced reloads to the point where I can successfully do them with my eyes closed because I have burned in the mechanics of it enough to rely on that training. Even though I can complete an aggressive fast reload with my eyes closed I am not going to rely on that in a match. I am going to call my "Shot" of the magazine entering the magwell properly just as I would be calling a shot using the sights. It does not take any more time to call the reload solid and it allows me to consider the reload "Done" that much sooner so I can move onto the next action to take during a stage run.

[Whoops!]

I don't think you see your sights for every shot Cha. I was just watching your area 2 vids and on a few of the close targets you were posting .12 to .11 second splits. I'm going to say it's physically impossible for you to really see and use your sights effectively for the second shot at that speed.

Let's say, extremely soft focus where the sight kind of combines with the slide and the whole thing becomes a grey blur as it moves. Or, do you still hold the stance that you can positively identify your front sight on that second shot? That being said, I do believe you were able to call your shot to within c-zone accuracy on those same splits, thanks to your bear-like grip and ingrained motor memory. That also being said, I think if you had closed your eyes for the second shot you would have been able to call it to within c-zone accuracy.

Edited November 30, 2013 by Whoops!

[gearguywb]

The speed of a second shot split has nothing to do with wether or not you see the sights. I don't know the individual that you are referring to, but the eye will certainly pick up an object much faster than .11 of a second.

Many sports revolve around the ability to truly see. Think hitting a baseball, tennis, etc. Almost any sport you can think of. One of the main reasons it becomes harder to compete at the top level in most sports is that we loose some of that fine focus and definition as we age.

[Shooter116]

Some do point shoot and Taran Butler is probably one of the best at it. Watch his you tube video of him mowing down a plate rack from the hip.

[Whoops!]

The speed of a second shot split has nothing to do with wether or not you see the sights. I don't know the individual that you are referring to, but the eye will certainly pick up an object much faster than .11 of a second.

We've already established this in the thread; however, Cha-Lee is now saying see your sights every time. I'm saying, he's not really seeing his sights every time. The Human eye will pick up an object faster than .11 of a second. I'm not arguing that. It will not, however pick up a tiny object going through it's recoil cycle which may take that same amount of time to settle down. Now, I'm not talking about slide movement which has been established at .04 seconds or less, I'm talking about muzzle movement, which in a major load will typically take at least that long to start coming back into the realm of stationary. Let's be realistic, his sights still moving when he breaks the second shot. The question then is, it still moving faster than his eyes can interpret and how long does it take his eyes and brain to interpret?

So, in summation and what I'm currently saying - on the close shots, I don't think he's using his sights for the follow-up shot.

Edited November 30, 2013 by Whoops!

[Supermoto]

Why would you see two individual sight pictures. Just see one continuous sight picture. Track the sight the entire time.

[Chris iliff]

The speed of a second shot split has nothing to do with wether or not you see the sights. I don't know the individual that you are referring to, but the eye will certainly pick up an object much faster than .11 of a second.

We've already established this in the thread; however, Cha-Lee is now saying see your sights every time. I'm saying, he's not really seeing his sights every time. The Human eye will pick up an object faster than .11 of a second. I'm not arguing that. It will not, however pick up a tiny object going through it's recoil cycle which may take that same amount of time to settle down. Now, I'm not talking about slide movement which has been established at .04 seconds or less, I'm talking about muzzle movement, which in a major load will typically take at least that long to start coming back into the realm of stationary. Let's be realistic, his sights still moving when he breaks the second shot. The question then is, it still moving faster than his eyes can interpret and how long does it take his eyes and brain to interpret?

So, in summation and what I'm currently saying - on the close shots, I don't think he's using his sights for the follow-up shot.

Well, I'm saying CHA-LEE does SEE his sights on every shot. I'm a level below Charlie, but can honestly say on the absolute best stage runs I have, no matter target distance, I SEE the sights (dot).

How could you EVER know what someone else does or does not see, you can't. To say what you said is kind of an insult to the person. Furthermore, you are limiting your own development. Good luck.

[CHA-LEE]

I don't think you see your sights for every shot Cha. I was just watching your area 2 vids and on a few of the close targets you were posting .12 to .11 second splits. I'm going to say it's physically impossible for you to really see and use your sights effectively for the second shot at that speed.

Let's say, extremely soft focus where the sight kind of combines with the slide and the whole thing becomes a grey blur as it moves. Or, do you still hold the stance that you can positively identify your front sight on that second shot? That being said, I do believe you were able to call your shot to within c-zone accuracy on those same splits, thanks to your bear-like grip and ingrained motor memory. That also being said, I think if you had closed your eyes for the second shot you would have been able to call it to within c-zone accuracy.

I am calling all of my shots regardless of the speed of shooting. Realistically .11 - .12 splits are not that fast. I have cranked out .08 - .09 splits during many stage runs and calling those shots was no more difficult than a .11 - .12 split. You can choose to believe that or not. I ask you this, why would I lie about being able to call my shots?

Am I using the exact same sight picture refinement for every single shot? No, that would be very ineffective. Every target distance and size requires a unique sight picture refinement in order to call it properly. Its all about putting in the range time to test these different target distances and sizes to see exactly how much the sights can be deviated before the shot ends up marginal or bad. For example, some times I may only need to see the fiber optic dot in the front sight lift off of the target to call the shot for close hoser stuff, or I may need to have a very hard focus on the front sight to the point of seeing the serrations for tight or long shots. Then there is everything in between than is a blend between these two extremes.

The point I was trying to make is that the ONLY way I can immediately start doing the next thing is by calling my shots. Calling the last shot on a target good allows me to immediately transition to the next target while the gun is still in recoil. It also allows me to immediately launch out of the shooting position with aggressiveness because I KNOW my last shot in the string is good and I can focus on the next task at hand which would be to haul ass to the next shooting position. These are just simple examples of why calling the last shot on a target or array is important. In reality calling all of your shots is very important.

Is my index and recoil management refined to a point where I could rely on point shooting and still get hits? Yes. Burning in these skills to eliminate all inefficiencies is the whole point of practicing them. I can leverage these skills when I am forced into a situation where the lighting is crappy and I can't even see my sights to call my shots. But doing this does slow down my transitions, exiting positions, and usually produces worse on target hits. If I have the choice between seeing my sights and calling my shots verses point shooting I am always going to take the "Calling my shots" rout until I can't call my shots anymore due to crappy lighting.

To each their own. I am just trying to explain what works for me. Maybe you can figure out a faster and more consistent way of shooting at high rates of speed, transitioning to the next target with zero delay, or being able to enter or exit shooting positions as soon as possible without calling your shots.

[CHA-LEE]

I will throw one last brain teaser out there for your guys. Once you refine your shot calling skill to a point of automated subconscious observation, processing and action, you stop deciding WHEN or HOW to pull the trigger. It simply happens on its own. Basically, once my subconscious mind sees and processes a valid sight picture for a given target it automatically initiates the pull of the trigger. Knowing this, all I have to do is get the sights on the target in a valid sight picture as soon as possible and the shots will essentially break on their own. This also includes the make up shots for the marginal or bad called shots.

This is a skill level of shooting that most "Double Tapping Point Shooters" will NEVER get to. They are too busy wasting time by consciously looking for holes to show up in the targets they are point shooting at.

[Whoops!]

The speed of a second shot split has nothing to do with wether or not you see the sights. I don't know the individual that you are referring to, but the eye will certainly pick up an object much faster than .11 of a second.

We've already established this in the thread; however, Cha-Lee is now saying see your sights every time. I'm saying, he's not really seeing his sights every time. The Human eye will pick up an object faster than .11 of a second. I'm not arguing that. It will not, however pick up a tiny object going through it's recoil cycle which may take that same amount of time to settle down. Now, I'm not talking about slide movement which has been established at .04 seconds or less, I'm talking about muzzle movement, which in a major load will typically take at least that long to start coming back into the realm of stationary. Let's be realistic, his sights still moving when he breaks the second shot. The question then is, it still moving faster than his eyes can interpret and how long does it take his eyes and brain to interpret?

So, in summation and what I'm currently saying - on the close shots, I don't think he's using his sights for the follow-up shot.

Well, I'm saying CHA-LEE does SEE his sights on every shot. I'm a level below Charlie, but can honestly say on the absolute best stage runs I have, no matter target distance, I SEE the sights (dot).

How could you EVER know what someone else does or does not see, you can't. To say what you said is kind of an insult to the person. Furthermore, you are limiting your own development. Good luck.

We're all humans, once a certain speed is ascertained, it is possible to say that a human can not do it. As I said, and Cha-Lee confirmed, he calls his shots every time, I firmly believe that. As I also said and he confirmed, he does not always see the front sight for every follow-up shot, but he is at a point where it does not produce a big hindrance to him.

By not studying science, you are limiting your own development. Good luck.

[CHA-LEE]

When or where did I say that I didn't always see the front sight for follow up shots? You make it sound like I approve of and promote seeing the sights once then pulling the trigger twice, which I do not and have not said was an acceptible way of shooting.

I stated that I always stay on the sights until the lighting conditions prevent me from even seeing the sights to use them. If the lighting conditions allow me to see the sights I am going to use them on every shot regardless of shooting speed. When the lighting conditions get bad enough that I can't see my sights then I have to resort to point shooting which does yield slower transitions and worse on target hits.

[gearguywb]

The speed of a second shot split has nothing to do with wether or not you see the sights. I don't know the individual that you are referring to, but the eye will certainly pick up an object much faster than .11 of a second.

We've already established this in the thread; however, Cha-Lee is now saying see your sights every time. I'm saying, he's not really seeing his sights every time. The Human eye will pick up an object faster than .11 of a second. I'm not arguing that. It will not, however pick up a tiny object going through it's recoil cycle which may take that same amount of time to settle down. Now, I'm not talking about slide movement which has been established at .04 seconds or less, I'm talking about muzzle movement, which in a major load will typically take at least that long to start coming back into the realm of stationary. Let's be realistic, his sights still moving when he breaks the second shot. The question then is, it still moving faster than his eyes can interpret and how long does it take his eyes and brain to interpret?

So, in summation and what I'm currently saying - on the close shots, I don't think he's using his sights for the follow-up shot.

I understand where you are coming from. Until you can do it, it is easy to say it can not be done.

Not trying to be harsh, but the question was asked and answered. I can tell you that the only time I do not see my sights......is well, just about never. When it does happen, then I am scared to death to go look at that target.

I worked for a few years teaching Special Forces soldiers close quarter, counter-terrorism techniques. I can't begin to tell you how many 2-4 yd targets were missed with M-4's as well as pistols because they were "point shot"

[Flexmoney]

... you were posting .12 to .11 second splits. I'm going to say it's physically impossible for you to really see and use your sights effectively for the second shot at that speed.

By not studying science, you are limiting your own development. Good luck.

I might suggest checking your premise. It seems you hold a belief, lets call that a hypothesis, that contradicts observed empirical evidence from others. For your hypothesis to be true, the actual observations of others needs to be faulty. They would have to be wrong in their reporting of actual observed experience. Possible. But, is it likely?

Lets examine your hypothesis. One basis, it seems, would be your earlier posting about reaction time:

Here's one glaring human factor that many ignore in this sport. The best human reaction time is around .15 seconds. The top competitors are not above this human factor.

I agree, but you are applying the [probable] facts incorrectly, IMO. And, it is a common way of looking at things. I think we tend to look at things...especially if we are analytical in nature...as a linear progression. We probably do this even more when we are trying to learn/understand something. In other words, we want to organize the information...in chunks that we understand and relate to. We want....A...then B....then C...etc.

We look to understand things as a series of events. We tend to want to "see" things as a snapshot in time. Then, we'd do something based off that information. And, that is wrong.

The reason that is wrong is because it is too slow. We would be resetting our decision making after each "snapshot" that we deemed significant. (see OODA loop)

You actually speak to your current mindset on that when you say:

Very few top competitors are posting .15 second splits and calling their second shot in time for it to be worth going back and picking up. By the time their brain has processed the shot well enough to know where it hit, they are .15 to .3 seconds past the shot. This means they are well into their next target.

You see, that assumes very linear thinking. That assumes things happening in series.

To transition back to the other target would take another fraction of a second. Then they must rethink the process they had planned for the rest of the stage.

...and again.

And then this speaks to a very set and rigid structure:

A process they had ingrained into their head...

However, the reality is that things are multi-dimensional...lots of things are going on at once. The skill set needed is to be able to observe constantly, not just in series and resets. The honing of that skill set it to make responses to those constant observations into automatic actions. (for the OODA loop thinkers, you would take out the middle O and D...leaving just Observe and Action...with the action being automatic.)

How does this factor in?

I covered some of this in another thread a few years back. I had noticed, on a few occasions, that I had fired (needed and observed) makeup shots on steel with 0.17 splits. That short amount of time negates any after-the-shot reaction..because my reaction time just isn't fast enough to do that. And, I had not pre-planned to fire 2 shots on the steel for any reason. So, how do I account for being able to fire a needed makeup shot at a pace much faster than my reaction time?

I was able to do so because I was constantly observing and was able to pick up cues as the shot was being formulated/made. I was observing constantly, and did not have to wait until after the shot to know it was off. (maybe I saw my sights dip because of poor trigger pressure, maybe I saw the gun was moving long or short of the steel and/or not stopping on target)

[GuildSF4]

RO (run the clock) for really good shooters at a level 2 or 3 match and you will see what Flex and Cha-Lee describe. You will see some shooters take a make-up shot on targets with a normal split time and when you score the targets you will see that it was needed.