Do master competitors point-shoot?

[Chills1994]

Portable EEG recorders and eye trackers:

http://www.alpha-active.com/Products.html

Measure your alpa waves to see if you're in the zone.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Chills1994

[45dotACP]

Here's why I think this isn't splitting hairs: If they're point shooting, consciously or not, then that suggests (as did Bob Londigran) that building muscle memory is essential to being a top competitor. That might be valuable to somebody who is evaluating their weaknesses and trying to construct the most efficient training regimen. It likely has other implications. For example, a GM who has only trained on Glocks would be expected to suffer a serious handicap on traditional grip angles. Someone who can point-shoot should be able to shoot accurately in conditions in which they cannot see their sights.

@Cha, @Flex, et. al., even if you are technically point-shooting I am not saying I disbelieve what you perceive. As I, and some of you, mentioned earlier, once you've hardwired these skills you can transpose them, both consciously and subconsciously. You can perceive that you (A) needed a follow-up, (B ) had a good sight picture, and (C ) sent the shot, even if the reality is that your brain sent the signal for C before receiving the signal for B. Just as there is a lower limit on reaction time I recall there is a lower limit on the ability to temporally sequence perceptions.

Muscle memory does indeed have a great deal to do with what makes the masters so masterful. But that doesn't mean that muscle memory is point shooting, or that just because I've shot a lot of Glocks, that I cannot pick up a 1911 and run it just as well. Recoil control and sight tracking is essentially the same for every pistol. High grip, drive the gun with the sights and track that front sight like it's a video...not a picture. Ever watch Jerry Miculek's videos? The ones where he picks up a new gun and runs it crazy fast? That's because he has the muscle memory necessary to shoot extremely well, but also because he has a fantastic stance, grip, trigger control and the ability to call his shots. This isn't 1940 anymore...you can shoot fast enough to win by using the sights. Jack Weaver proved this decades ago, and then guys came up with better, faster ways to use sights, all the while, point shooting is still just shouting "muscle memory YOLO" throwing a gun out in front of your body and pulling the trigger. According to point shooters, using sights makes you slower. According to people who use the sights...well we're too busy polishing all the mad trophies we win using sights.

Also if you're shooting in the dark, you may just consider using a set of night sights...probably be faster than expecting to hit an incapacitating target on your hypothetical bad guy (like the heart, brain, or spine) by just pointing a gun and pulling the trigger. Further, if you watch the low light IDPA matches or the Crimson Trace 3 gun match that they shoot at night, you'll notice this...Nobody is point shooting.

Get a good instructor, practice a lot, learn to call shots, and you'll get it...

Edited December 6, 2013 by 45dotACP

[Racinready300ex]

However, many of your arguments actually support this scientifically authenticated fact, you just don't understand it. So far, none of the theories or studies presented so far negate this fact, and I welcome anyone who can quote a newly published article from any reputable scientific journal which does.

So just how long does it take to see something? And can you give me a link to the study you get that from?

Edited December 6, 2013 by Racinready300ex

[Chills1994]

However, many of your arguments actually support this scientifically authenticated fact, you just don't understand it. So far, none of the theories or studies presented so far negate this fact, and I welcome anyone who can quote a newly published article from any reputable scientific journal which does.

So just how long does it take to see something? And can you give me a link to the study you get that from?

Maybe this helps: Event Related Potentials:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event-related_potential

IIRC, researchers discovered that when presented with some stimulus the brain puts out these ERP's. One of them is called N100. The N stands for negative and it occurs at 100 miliseconds after the stimulus is presented. AFAIK, there wasn't any research done on masters of "visualization" vs. Amateurs.

Further research has indicated that there is a particular brainwave pattern that shows up when a visual stimulus is recognized. There is another brainwave pattern put out when the visual stimulus is NOT recognized.

For a while there, that technology was going to usher in a new generation of lie detector tests because only the correct perp would be familiar with the mental images of that crime scene. Show the bad guy pictures of the victim's body and the brain wave basically screams "BINGO! I HAVE SEEN THAT BEFORE!" Show an innocent man the same pictures, and his brainwave says "Nope, don't recognize that!"

How long that process takes, I don't know.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Chills1994

[Racinready300ex]

Interesting.

While I was looking for that type of info I came across studies that showed that gamers could see faster (not sure how to word that) than regular people. So it makes me wonder if someone at the GM level who has trained them selves to look for that sight can see it quicker.

[Chris iliff]

So, technically what I'm saying is this . . . Anytime anyone has a split faster than .15 seconds, he or she is point shooting. You may see where your sights were after the shot broke, but when you made that shot, you did not see the sights.

I think it follows from this that the secret to learning to shoot fast is to learning to shoot without using the sights.

I agree with this, as with most other things Ben says.

You still see your sights, you are just unable to comprehend the sight picture before the second shot breaks. That's why you are unable to make mechanical correction to sight alignment prior to breaking that second shot. A couple of you seem unable to grasp this fact

Says who? You? Based on what, .....your ability? I guess you lost me again, explaining to me that I'm not doing something, that you can't do, when I know I am doing it. Again, and I promise, this is the last time I'll point it out, subconsciously we are capable of millions of things all at once instantaneously. That is scientific fact. It's so many, they can't even put a number on it. Again, scientific fact. So again, the best performances in any sport are done on a subconscious level. I think this is pretty much agreed on in the sporting community. In this mode, .15 would be slow. In this mode, mechanical correction is more than possible. Physiological limitations? Holy crap, that's about as an exact science as tiddly winks. Those barriers are constantly being busted and will continue to be. You know, we are diving now to below 400 ft, without air or suits. Just a couple years ago 80-90 was the world record, 100? 150? Hell that's impossible? That'd kill anyone. Funny, you sound like one of those people.

I, myself, will impose no such limits on my ability. I'll squad with Flex or Charlie and anyone else better than me and continue to grow and learn. .15, I laugh ha ha ha.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Chris iliff

[eric nielsen]

This thread has brilliance mixed with ignorance, and honest posts mixed with trolling, to extremes I can't remember ever seeing on this forum. If you can pick the wheat from the chaff there's a lot to be gained; if you can't tell which is which you might want to walk away for now and then come back some later date when you've discovered more things with your shooting. 2 cents.

[Chills1994]

This isn't the eye tracking video from Canada that I mentioned earlier, but close enough:

[Givo08]

There is a lot of good info in here.

I would say though that at 3 yards and in, there is no need to use your front sight. On a classifier like "Can you count," if you have the muscle memory engrained to be able to look at a spot and then bring your sight to that spot, you can fire that classifier with all 20 shots being Alpha's and never really look at your front sight. Now, if you have the muscle memory to do that, you likely will still see your front sight bouncing in and out of the rear notch in your peripheral vision, but you don't really need it there at that kind of distance.

[Ron Ankeny]

Wow, I have been away from this forum for a long time, and this is the first thread I read upon my return. It's pretty hard for me to believe that I am not seeing what I am fully aware of seeing when I shoot those blistering fast Bill Drills.

[45dotACP]

Wow, I have been away from this forum for a long time, and this is the first thread I read upon my return. It's pretty hard for me to believe that I am not seeing what I am fully aware of seeing when I shoot those blistering fast Bill Drills.

Yep, in your absence it has been decreed that you did not in fact see your sights because they were moving too quickly for you to physiologically process (or something like that)

[98sr20ve]

I trained my Mom who shoots maybe 6 times a year to point shoot in about 30 mins. I had already done all the basics She was actually faster and more accurate doing that then aiming at about 5 yds, IF she was trying to rush the aiming (which newbies often do). Point shooting is not hard and more instinctive then aiming for most people. You just need to train to present the gun in the same fashion every time and push it towards the target. First shot you can see the front sight visible but it is not aligned to the rear sight (because the gun is not up at eye level) second shot is aligned to the front and rear sight.

[Whoops!]

Wow, I have been away from this forum for a long time, and this is the first thread I read upon my return. It's pretty hard for me to believe that I am not seeing what I am fully aware of seeing when I shoot those blistering fast Bill Drills.

Yep, in your absence it has been decreed that you did not in fact see your sights because they were moving too quickly for you to physiologically process (or something like that)

Actually, he doesn't see it until after he breaks the shot, on the second shot in the split, that is. I don't understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp. This means he still sees the sights, but doesn't process what the sight picture was until after the shot broke. If you don't understand what's being said, please try not to incorrectly explain it. This makes a world of difference in the concept.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Whoops!

[Chris iliff]

Actually, he doesn't see it until after he breaks the shot, on the second shot in the split, that is. I don't understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp.

Because it's simply wrong. Period. You are trying to tell a bunch shooters, who happen to be at the upper end of the spectrum, that have skills you don't have, how they are wrong. This is funny. You are what? Are you even a competitor? Maybe an enthusiast? You are talking to some shooters that have, quite literally, written on the subject.

And on another note: a woman named Tanya Streeter just shattered the free dive records of both men and women. New record is 525ft. I mention this because physiologically, we weren't even capable of 100 feet just a few short years ago. Wow!

[Whoops!]

The problem is you are relating what I'm saying to something else entirely. I have a question for you . . . is the world round, or square?

What I'm saying is what they're doing is completely explainable by science. I have even explained in this thread exactly how it is being done. It's far from rocket science. Some people are unable to grasp the concept, however...

There are no magic fairies or genetic mutations here, only human factors at work.

As far as skills, what would you like for me to show you? Would you like a fast split on target at 15 yards, which I'm looking at the whole time, but which my brain doesn't completely process the observation of until after the second shot has broken?

I should add how difficult it would have been for Leonardo Da Vinci to demonstrate all of his concepts, but, also add that I don't care, I'm not him. I've been meaning to make one for that "Lets see video of your splits" thread anyway. In fact, I'll let you choose what division, Limited Major, Production, or Open? If you would like, to show you how repeatable it is, I can shoot a ton of rounds and then I can move the target closer so you can count the bullet holes to make sure each one hit the target. Keeping it at .15 seconds or less, I should be able to squeeze out all A's and C's at that range... Actually, I might need to move it up to 12 yards to be sure of that. You know what, even better, I can stream it live at the range, so you know I didn't edit the video. If you know anyone at any of the broadcasting networks, I'd be happy to do it live on cable television. Although, you never know what the news cuts out.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Whoops!

[dbooksta]

Actually, he doesn't see it until after he breaks the shot, on the second shot in the split, that is. I don't understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp.

Because it's simply wrong. Period. You are trying to tell a bunch shooters, who happen to be at the upper end of the spectrum, that have skills you don't have, how they are wrong. This is funny. You are what? Are you even a competitor? Maybe an enthusiast? You are talking to some shooters that have, quite literally, written on the subject.

And on another note: a woman named Tanya Streeter just shattered the free dive records of both men and women. New record is 525ft. I mention this because physiologically, we weren't even capable of 100 feet just a few short years ago. Wow!

@Whoops couldn't have put this any more simply. If you accept the claim that people can't perceive and react to a stimulus faster than about .15 seconds then faster splits are, by deduction, being shot before the second sight picture is perceived.

This has led to plenty of interesting and useful points of discussion: E.g., what stimulus or perception are top practitioners referencing to decide to break the second shot if not the sight picture? There have been plenty of good answers. My takeaway is that they can perceive something wrong with the first shot, make the decision to shoot again, and depend on muscle memory to do so accurately. They do perceive the second sight picture, so they can call their second shot, but only after they have sent the command to break the second shot. So we're not disputing what you achieve -- accurate splits below the reaction threshold, and calling each shot -- nor are we disputing that you perceived a second sight picture. We're merely clarifying that it's physiologically impossible for the perception of the latter to have preceded the former, which fact has illuminated this deeper discussion.

Now, if you reject that physiological constraint, and if you could find a way to demonstrate that it can be meaningfully exceeded, then there are many academics who would love to hear from you. That would be a guaranteed publication.

(As for this free dive analogy: was there at some point a scientific consensus that humans were physiologically incapable of exceeding a certain depth? If so what was the basis and constraint specifically cited? The reaction stimulus is based on nerve impulse speed, which is based on well understood chemistry and physics. A claim that some humans have faster nerve chemistry would be as groundbreaking as a discovery that some humans can see infrared radiation or smell carbon monoxide. It would require fundamentally different physiology than exists in any known human being.)

[gearguywb]

This has actually gotten to be pretty hilarious. Now we can't process the sight picture that we see until after the second shot? Really?

The whole discussion of splits is fairly absurd to begin with. Simply shoot every shot as fast as that shot can be fired accurately. Nothing more. Nothing less. If you are looking for time, splits are not the place to look for it.

[BSeevers]

Actually, he doesn't see it until after he breaks the shot, on the second shot in the split, that is. I don't understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp.

Because it's simply wrong. Period. You are trying to tell a bunch shooters, who happen to be at the upper end of the spectrum, that have skills you don't have, how they are wrong. This is funny. You are what? Are you even a competitor? Maybe an enthusiast? You are talking to some shooters that have, quite literally, written on the subject.

And on another note: a woman named Tanya Streeter just shattered the free dive records of both men and women. New record is 525ft. I mention this because physiologically, we weren't even capable of 100 feet just a few short years ago. Wow!

@Whoops couldn't have put this any more simply. If you accept the claim that people can't perceive and react to a stimulus faster than about .15 seconds then faster splits are, by deduction, being shot before the second sight picture is perceived.

This has led to plenty of interesting and useful points of discussion: E.g., what stimulus or perception are top practitioners referencing to decide to break the second shot if not the sight picture? There have been plenty of good answers. My takeaway is that they can perceive something wrong with the first shot, make the decision to shoot again, and depend on muscle memory to do so accurately. They do perceive the second sight picture, so they can call their second shot, but only after they have sent the command to break the second shot. So we're not disputing what you achieve -- accurate splits below the reaction threshold, and calling each shot -- nor are we disputing that you perceived a second sight picture. We're merely clarifying that it's physiologically impossible for the perception of the latter to have preceded the former, which fact has illuminated this deeper discussion.

Now, if you reject that physiological constraint, and if you could find a way to demonstrate that it can be meaningfully exceeded, then there are many academics who would love to hear from you. That would be a guaranteed publication.

(As for this free dive analogy: was there at some point a scientific consensus that humans were physiologically incapable of exceeding a certain depth? If so what was the basis and constraint specifically cited? The reaction stimulus is based on nerve impulse speed, which is based on well understood chemistry and physics. A claim that some humans have faster nerve chemistry would be as groundbreaking as a discovery that some humans can see infrared radiation or smell carbon monoxide. It would require fundamentally different physiology than exists in any known human being.)

I never try to be an expert in some things but but in fast shooting, I am

Mama's wrong again.

The answer has been given by many of the "real' fast shooters early in the thread but I'll try again.

Your application of Reaction Time is incorrect. It assumes a fixed event. We See the Entire Time, at a higher level that must be trained in. Since you all like science I hope I don't have to explain how fast light travels. If you bring up the time it takes light to convert on the back of the eye and travel to the brain cells then give a response etc.........See Above

We See the Entire Time

I didn't shoot those 100,000's and 100,000's of rounds to keep Federal in bizness

[Whoops!]

Actually, he doesn't see it until after he breaks the shot, on the second shot in the split, that is. I don't understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp.

Because it's simply wrong. Period. You are trying to tell a bunch shooters, who happen to be at the upper end of the spectrum, that have skills you don't have, how they are wrong. This is funny. You are what? Are you even a competitor? Maybe an enthusiast? You are talking to some shooters that have, quite literally, written on the subject.

And on another note: a woman named Tanya Streeter just shattered the free dive records of both men and women. New record is 525ft. I mention this because physiologically, we weren't even capable of 100 feet just a few short years ago. Wow!

@Whoops couldn't have put this any more simply. If you accept the claim that people can't perceive and react to a stimulus faster than about .15 seconds then faster splits are, by deduction, being shot before the second sight picture is perceived.

This has led to plenty of interesting and useful points of discussion: E.g., what stimulus or perception are top practitioners referencing to decide to break the second shot if not the sight picture? There have been plenty of good answers. My takeaway is that they can perceive something wrong with the first shot, make the decision to shoot again, and depend on muscle memory to do so accurately. They do perceive the second sight picture, so they can call their second shot, but only after they have sent the command to break the second shot. So we're not disputing what you achieve -- accurate splits below the reaction threshold, and calling each shot -- nor are we disputing that you perceived a second sight picture. We're merely clarifying that it's physiologically impossible for the perception of the latter to have preceded the former, which fact has illuminated this deeper discussion.

Now, if you reject that physiological constraint, and if you could find a way to demonstrate that it can be meaningfully exceeded, then there are many academics who would love to hear from you. That would be a guaranteed publication.

(As for this free dive analogy: was there at some point a scientific consensus that humans were physiologically incapable of exceeding a certain depth? If so what was the basis and constraint specifically cited? The reaction stimulus is based on nerve impulse speed, which is based on well understood chemistry and physics. A claim that some humans have faster nerve chemistry would be as groundbreaking as a discovery that some humans can see infrared radiation or smell carbon monoxide. It would require fundamentally different physiology than exists in any known human being.)

I never try to be an expert in some things but but in fast shooting, I am

Mama's wrong again.

The answer has been given by many of the "real' fast shooters early in the thread but I'll try again.

Your application of Reaction Time is incorrect. It assumes a fixed event. We See the Entire Time, at a higher level that must be trained in. Since you all like science I hope I don't have to explain how fast light travels. If you bring up the time it takes light to convert on the back of the eye and travel to the brain cells then give a response etc.........See Above

We See the Entire Time

I didn't shoot those 100,000's and 100,000's of rounds to keep Federal in bizness

If you don't accept that it takes time for the brain to process what we're seeing the entire time, you need to go back to school.

[Flexmoney]

If one wanted to be technical, nobody sees anything until after the fact ...just due to the time it take light to travel. Therefore everybody point shoots.

There are at least 3 holes in the "science" that have been suggested here.

The first is the 0.15s number. Whoops!, What is that based of off? Reaction time tests? As has been expressed here a few times, we don't always do things based off reaction time. (How would we drive down the road at 90mph, or hit a ball?)

Next we have a visual lag, which would include the time it takes the eye to gather the visual information and transmit that information on to the brain. (Computer types or gamers might relate this to network lag or ping). There seem to be studies that suggest the time for visual lag is 100 milliseconds. But, there is a possible error in taking that number as an absolute. I'd have to look into the studies (I haven't). I'd immediately question the sample population. How large was it? Who did it include?

For instance, if we were to sample 100...or 500... people off the street and test them for bench press one rep max, what would that tell us? We would get a number and one might report that "people bench press X pounds". Now, lets say that number has an average of 150 pounds (likely generous) and an upper outlier of 200 pounds, for the population that was tested. That could be written up as good science...it happens all the time. Now, throw me in the mix. I used to do reps at 315 pounds (not in a while). There are plenty that lift that much and more, but they may not have been in the sample population. So, these trained specialist might easily be outside of the study results.

Even outside of trained specialist, I'd expect to see variation of visual lag speed from hydration levels, electrolyte levels, etc. Heck, I have a supply of "eye/brain health stuff" sitting in my lab fridge. What effects might it have?

So, I am off the 0.15s number. I am also not going to call the 0.10s number an absolute. Just based on science (not on my own observations). What if we can go just 25% faster. Does that seem like a plausible amount of variation?

Now, what if we can...through training...eliminate the useless data. What if we can filter out the data that is not really needed? Or, to say it differently, what if we could immediately recognize the data that is important?

Third, we are making an assumption that the data received from the eye needs to take the time to travel to the brain, for a higher decision making process. What if, through training, that decision could be localized at a more base level? Perhaps our training could allow the data to be recognized as a simple go/nogo process, that could be handled with a quicker mechanism. A more basic level of the nervous system. Even more, maybe it is not even a go/nogo switch that needs activated one way or the other. Maybe the switch is always in the on position unless turned off.

So science. There is an issue with using it to explain limitations. In fact, it should probably be used in the opposite manner. It should be used to explore and understand that which is outside of common thinking.

Science can be like a perfectly forms crystal ball. No imperfections, Perfect clarity. Then, somebody can come along with the bat of practical reality and smash it all to hell.

[Whoops!]

Actually, you just explained the whole concept perfectly. For one, the .15 second time is at the top of the charts with huge numbers of studies. It throws away outliers and uses averages to accurately indicate with thousands upon thousands of measurements taken. It incorporates not just visual lag, but the response to it among not just normal people, but professional athletes. Let's say, hypothetically, one person is absolutely super human. Their visual lag is off the charts low and previously unrecorded at 50 miliseconds. Let's say their response is equally amazing at 50 miliseconds. Let's say it take 60 miliseconds for the gun to recoil back to point of aim, which is also holy crap impressive. That person is still not using the sights to break their second shot with .15 second or faster splits.

As a result, they must only be utilizing the response time aspect to break the shot. They have good timing and a fast finger, along with an outstanding grip to make their .10 second split. Not fast eye sight.

Now, transitions are a different story...

Edited December 19, 2013 by Whoops!

[Flexmoney]

It incorporates not just visual lag, but the response to it.

You are still missing it.

[Whoops!]

No, you are. Lol

Obviously we're getting no where, let's just leave the two concepts where they lay. You say they actively use the sights prior to breaking the second shot. I say, it's impossible, even though I always see the sights for fast splits, eventually .

Edited December 19, 2013 by Whoops!

[Flexmoney]

Perhaps.

But, you just added in 0.6s because you want to wait for recoil. ... Then, start you clock. Fresh. Every time.

You are missing it.

You are speaking of a static picture.

[BSeevers]

Actually, he doesn't see it until after he breaks the shot, on the second shot in the split, that is. I don't understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp.

Because it's simply wrong. Period. You are trying to tell a bunch shooters, who happen to be at the upper end of the spectrum, that have skills you don't have, how they are wrong. This is funny. You are what? Are you even a competitor? Maybe an enthusiast? You are talking to some shooters that have, quite literally, written on the subject.

And on another note: a woman named Tanya Streeter just shattered the free dive records of both men and women. New record is 525ft. I mention this because physiologically, we weren't even capable of 100 feet just a few short years ago. Wow!

@Whoops couldn't have put this any more simply. If you accept the claim that people can't perceive and react to a stimulus faster than about .15 seconds then faster splits are, by deduction, being shot before the second sight picture is perceived.

This has led to plenty of interesting and useful points of discussion: E.g., what stimulus or perception are top practitioners referencing to decide to break the second shot if not the sight picture? There have been plenty of good answers. My takeaway is that they can perceive something wrong with the first shot, make the decision to shoot again, and depend on muscle memory to do so accurately. They do perceive the second sight picture, so they can call their second shot, but only after they have sent the command to break the second shot. So we're not disputing what you achieve -- accurate splits below the reaction threshold, and calling each shot -- nor are we disputing that you perceived a second sight picture. We're merely clarifying that it's physiologically impossible for the perception of the latter to have preceded the former, which fact has illuminated this deeper discussion.

Now, if you reject that physiological constraint, and if you could find a way to demonstrate that it can be meaningfully exceeded, then there are many academics who would love to hear from you. That would be a guaranteed publication.

(As for this free dive analogy: was there at some point a scientific consensus that humans were physiologically incapable of exceeding a certain depth? If so what was the basis and constraint specifically cited? The reaction stimulus is based on nerve impulse speed, which is based on well understood chemistry and physics. A claim that some humans have faster nerve chemistry would be as groundbreaking as a discovery that some humans can see infrared radiation or smell carbon monoxide. It would require fundamentally different physiology than exists in any known human being.)

I never try to be an expert in some things but but in fast shooting, I am

Mama's wrong again.

The answer has been given by many of the "real' fast shooters early in the thread but I'll try again.

Your application of Reaction Time is incorrect. It assumes a fixed event. We See the Entire Time, at a higher level that must be trained in. Since you all like science I hope I don't have to explain how fast light travels. If you bring up the time it takes light to convert on the back of the eye and travel to the brain cells then give a response etc.........See Above

We See the Entire Time

I didn't shoot those 100,000's and 100,000's of rounds to keep Federal in bizness

If you don't accept that it takes time for the brain to process what we're seeing the entire time, you need to go back to school.

I'll try one more time.

That process time is there gee no kidding. You assume, incorrectly, that people that shoot fast respond to one input to shoot fast. Your famous .15.

It is a constant process and a whole bunch of inputs.

Do you know that people drive 200 mph, hit 101 mph fastballs, etc. Do you really think they go through a input, respond in .15 sec, get result?

Edited December 19, 2013 by BSeevers