Revelation

[Robco]

Cool. See you at the Area 1 match, 2015.

[Nimitz]

I wondering how this all translates in the world of minor PF? Obviously 'points/sec' is still the only metric that matters since HF is determined the same way but in the world where relatively less accuracy is punished severely will trading As for some Cs really up your HF. It's obviously stage dependent too but at first glance it seems that you would have to be significantly faster to have your HF higher by giving up some points in the name of speed ....

I haven't shot a lot of big matches to see how the top shooters compare but at the local level I see all the time good Production shooters who 'only' put up really good times beat those who put up really fast times because their accuracy is better. It might be interesting to take those scores and run them with major PF scoring to see if it is different on who comes out on top. Or run a sensitivity analysis to see at what point (percentage wise) being way faster but less accurate still has you come out with a higher HF ...

Does this make sense?

[Onepocket]

Makes a lot of sense. I shoot production and one if the hardest things for me at first is how hard to push it at a match. I aim for 90% , the way I gauge it is greater than 90% I'm going to slow, <90% I'm moving to fast. In about the last six months I have gotten a lot better at reading a stage and dialing in the speed I need. I not sure this concept is correct but it seems to work for me.

[Supermoto]

Makes a lot of sense. I shoot production and one if the hardest things for me at first is how hard to push it at a match. I aim for 90% , the way I gauge it is greater than 90% I'm going to slow, <90% I'm moving to fast. In about the last six months I have gotten a lot better at reading a stage and dialing in the speed I need. I not sure this concept is correct but it seems to work for me.

I try for 100% of the points as fast as I can. Each point down is a mistake made. I try to minimize the mistakes

[Onepocket]

Not to bring up point shooting again. But Taran and Vogel have a duel part two on YouTube. I would post it if I knew how, these guys just remind me of how bad I suck. If anyone can post it please do.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Onepocket

[Robco]

I wondering how this all translates in the world of minor PF? Obviously 'points/sec' is still the only metric that matters since HF is determined the same way but in the world where relatively less accuracy is punished severely will trading As for some Cs really up your HF. It's obviously stage dependent too but at first glance it seems that you would have to be significantly faster to have your HF higher by giving up some points in the name of speed ....

I haven't shot a lot of big matches to see how the top shooters compare but at the local level I see all the time good Production shooters who 'only' put up really good times beat those who put up really fast times because their accuracy is better. It might be interesting to take those scores and run them with major PF scoring to see if it is different on who comes out on top. Or run a sensitivity analysis to see at what point (percentage wise) being way faster but less accurate still has you come out with a higher HF ...

Does this make sense?

Makes perfect sense Nimitz. That occurred to me, and I think I mentioned it briefly, but you are thinking right. That said, remember that Ben Stoeger started all of this! (i.e., he shoots Production)

I can change the scoring from major to minor in Practiscore and see what difference it would make, but that is a nonsensical comparison due to the difference in recoil and thus shooting speeds on splits. In other words, the reason that minor PF is scored differently than Major is precisely for the reason of equating the minor and major PF, everything else being equal.

Attached find the results of my Target focus speed test, posted a couple days ago, AMENDED now with three columns added to the right, showing the PF as if I scored it minor, and the differences between Major and Minor PF in %.

Not surprisingly, the PF suffered most in the fastest runs, due to poorer hits, when minor scoring applied. BUT the Minor HF on the fastest/least accurate runs is still way higher than on the slower and more accurate Minor HF runs. So the theory and effect of speeding up still is advantageous within this sample anyway. Plus I could have shot it faster with a minor PF, so the results would be even more impressive in the Minor comparison.

Power Factor comparison in Target focus Speed test data - Rob Cook - 2-21-15.pdf

Edited February 21, 2015 by Robco

[Robco]

Makes a lot of sense. I shoot production and one if the hardest things for me at first is how hard to push it at a match. I aim for 90% , the way I gauge it is greater than 90% I'm going to slow, <90% I'm moving to fast. In about the last six months I have gotten a lot better at reading a stage and dialing in the speed I need. I not sure this concept is correct but it seems to work for me.

Onepocket - that is wise. I have learned from Manny Bragg, among others, to track your match results in many ways. A chief accuracy and speed check as you discussed and mentioned, it what % of points possible you shot, before penalties applied. This should be between 92 and 94 for major PF, maybe a point less for minor?

When you shot 94%, you were probably too conservative and slow. Either you shot slowly to be more accurate, or you took a lot of makeup shots to get better hits, but wasted time doing so.

If you are under 91% you were probably running the gun to fast, and were a little sloppy.

However, in matches with tons of partials, this will be lower for obvious reasons - a smart shooter plays it safe and aims away from the N/S and Hardcover, thus giving up A's intentionally for risk management.

[Robco]

Not to bring up point shooting again. But Taran and Vogel have a duel part two on YouTube. I would post it if I knew how, these guys just remind me of how bad I suck. If anyone can post it please do.

Is this the one you are referencing Onepocket? It is a PERFECT example, of how much faster a trained shooter can operate using purely target focus. Not that I would do it in a match, and neither will Taran, but it does illustrate the possibilities if we lose the traditional "front sight focus" brainwashing for a moment. Of course, it is impossible to call a shot without target feedback, if you cannot at least see the front sight peripherally, as in seeing THRU the sights.

[Supermoto]

Not to bring up point shooting again. But Taran and Vogel have a duel part two on YouTube. I would post it if I knew how, these guys just remind me of how bad I suck. If anyone can post it please do.

Is this the one you are referencing Onepocket? It is a PERFECT example, of how much faster a trained shooter can operate using purely target focus. Not that I would do it in a match, and neither will Taran, but it does illustrate the possibilities if we lose the traditional "front sight focus" brainwashing for a moment. Of course, it is impossible to call a shot without target feedback, if you cannot at least see the front sight peripherally, as in seeing THRU the sights.

This video isn't the "target focus" everyone has been taking about. This is point shooting

[Robco]

I had never really heard or known anything much about "point shooting" until I started on the enos forum a few days ago, but I did state that what Taran is doing in the "hip shooting" video, is NOT what I (or he) do in a match or in USPSA shooting.

So without commenting on the semantics issues, I would just reiterate that when me, or Stoeger among others, speak of "Target Focus" aiming, we are NOT saying we do not see the front sights in relation to the target. We ARE. Just not focused on the sights. And doing so allows shot calling.

No way hip shooting can permit seeing the sights at all, meaningfully. It is pure hand eye coordination I would assume. And the only way these shots can be "called" is by the resultant hits being observed. Too late in other words.

[Robco]

Question = how can you reference/link another thread and post from the enos forum, into a new post?

There is a whole other discussion on target focus I could not find by searching, before getting into the subject in this string, that I found last night.

[Ultimo-Hombre]

I had never really heard or known anything much about "point shooting" until I started on the enos forum a few days ago, but I did state that what Taran is doing in the "hip shooting" video, is NOT what I (or he) do in a match or in USPSA shooting.

So without commenting on the semantics issues, I would just reiterate that when me, or Stoeger among others, speak of "Target Focus" aiming, we are NOT saying we do not see the front sights in relation to the target. We ARE. Just not focused on the sights. And doing so allows shot calling.

No way hip shooting can permit seeing the sights at all, meaningfully. It is pure hand eye coordination I would assume. And the only way these shots can be "called" is by the resultant hits being observed. Too late in other words.

I used to compete in cowboy fast draw. Pure hip shooting. Funny thing was there was kind of a parallel to visual patience with that sort of hip shooting. IIRC we shot a 21 inch diameter steel plate at 10 yards ( with wax bullets)

Fast draw is purely head to head. You shoot elimination heats so all you have to do is beat the guys next to you on the line.

I had 3 different "draws"

First was flat out... Breaking the shot as soon as I cleared leather

Second was my "66"... Meaning I'd get the hit two thirds of the time, albeit a touch slower

Last was the sure thing... Still shooting from the hip, but index refined enough for 95% hit reliability.

Without boring you guys on fast draw competition strategy there was a time and place for each of these.

I bring this up because the amount of "focus" put into any shot seems to always be a balance of patience and time.

If only I could reconcile that skill set with shot calling

[Robco]

I had never really heard or known anything much about "point shooting" until I started on the enos forum a few days ago, but I did state that what Taran is doing in the "hip shooting" video, is NOT what I (or he) do in a match or in USPSA shooting.

So without commenting on the semantics issues, I would just reiterate that when me, or Stoeger among others, speak of "Target Focus" aiming, we are NOT saying we do not see the front sights in relation to the target. We ARE. Just not focused on the sights. And doing so allows shot calling.

No way hip shooting can permit seeing the sights at all, meaningfully. It is pure hand eye coordination I would assume. And the only way these shots can be "called" is by the resultant hits being observed. Too late in other words.

I used to compete in cowboy fast draw. Pure hip shooting. Funny thing was there was kind of a parallel to visual patience with that sort of hip shooting. IIRC we shot a 21 inch diameter steel plate at 10 yards ( with wax bullets)

Fast draw is purely head to head. You shoot elimination heats so all you have to do is beat the guys next to you on the line.

I had 3 different "draws"

First was flat out... Breaking the shot as soon as I cleared leather

Second was my "66"... Meaning I'd get the hit two thirds of the time, albeit a touch slower

Last was the sure thing... Still shooting from the hip, but index refined enough for 95% hit reliability.

Without boring you guys on fast draw competition strategy there was a time and place for each of these.

I bring this up because the amount of "focus" put into any shot seems to always be a balance of patience and time.

If only I could reconcile that skill set with shot calling

Ultimo-Hombre - interesting points.

I have, intentionally, kept a very narrow shooting experience. I have not even branched out into other divisions in USPSA competition. So it is great to get broadening perspectives like yours here.

My first reaction is that it is notable that you had various responses (draws) you could execute on at will. This is very much like USPSA shooting. Of course, in both sports, the draws are the same, up until the point in the movement where the aiming begins. And then, there are many different methods of aiming. Enos says there are 5 types of "focus." I am still trying to digest all his points. But clearly, there are at least three. And the target and situation as well as the shooter's skill level are what dictates which type is to be appropriate for that particular execution.

I think shot calling is a confusing subject. In its simplest form, it means KNOWING where the muzzle was aimed when the shot was released. This can be accomplished in various ways apparently. Shot calling allows a shooter to confidently move on from a prior shot execution, confidently, thus enjoying the efficiencies of so doing. What is confusing is that it does NOT necessarily mean seeing the front sight rise in recoil, per se, and certainly not necessarily with a front sight focus. Or, alternatively, you may not NEED to call a shot on a particularly easy target. Not sure which is "true." But the main point is that you need to SEE enough, to know that the shot was successful, at the earliest point in time, so the shooter can move forward without hesitation.

Follow thru is often related to shot calling. And follow thru is a matter of timing, where a shooter allows the sights to return to the target out of recoil, before moving on to another shot or target. This has been called "buying insurance" by Manny Bragg. The patience to wait only a few hundredths of a second to allow the sights to settle from a transition or recoil, can assure an accurate shot. In the scheme of things, this insurance premium (extra 5 hundredths of a second per shot) almost always saves more time and points than it costs overall.

Not sure if this even is responsive to your last sentence or not, but it is what occurs to me.

[Onepocket]

Try this: set up a target at 7 yards, concentrate on a spot on the A zone. Close your eyes draw and fire two shots at that spot. I would bet that everyone that is an A class shooter and above would hit two A's. Some would even be able to push the target back to 10 yards. I'm not saying you should practice this way but muscle memory goes along way.

[Robco]

Try this: set up a target at 7 yards, concentrate on a spot on the A zone. Close your eyes draw and fire two shots at that spot. I would bet that everyone that is an A class shooter and above would hit two A's. Some would even be able to push the target back to 10 yards. I'm not saying you should practice this way but muscle memory goes along way.

Interesting point. Of course, at what speed draw? I can barely get 2 A's at 7 yards in 1.0 seconds with my eyes OPEN!

This is I believe what people call natural point of aim. One thing that has not been mentioned in this string, I believe, is sight alignment being ASSUMED.

Per your assertion OnePocket, I have trained my hand eye coordination to be able to point my pistol where I am looking, naturally, instinctively, just like we all can with our finger. We all do that to one degree or another, and this should be taken full advantage of on easier targets, for the sake of speed. Using an always-on laser cartridge insert is useful in providing instant feedback loop for training this coordination in dry fire. Look at target, present pistol to aim at the point you are looking at, without using the sights, observe where the laser is hitting, then check sight picture, adjust and repeat, a thousand times!

Part of this skill and coordination is that I can hardly hold my pistol and present it without the sights being almost perfectly aligned automatically. You can check this with the laser insert too. This has to do mostly with a proper, balanced grip and a lot of dry fire practice. Essentially, this is how the old west gunfighters operated, and got off a quick and accurate first shot! At least if you believe all the cowboy movie BS we have all been steeped in for 85 years.

But for we USPSA competitive shooters, we can and should use this type of aiming (Enos calls it type 1 focus) on close, risk free targets when we can successfully do so with 2A. Brian says he does not even call these type one shots, because he is not really seeing the sights at all (as I understand him to say). He goes on to say, I believe, that on type 1 focus he has NEITHER a target or a sight focus. Makes sense and comports with my own experience.

Knowing your own capabilities and limitations as to when to use Type 1 aiming is key, as with any other type of focus/aiming. Very much true regarding shooting on the move too. Max Michel says that the first thing to decide about whether to engage any targets in a stage on the move, is whether you should or not. Manny Bragg taught me that I had a max of 7 yard range within which I could engage full IPSC targets, where I am moving sideways parallel to them. At 7 yards I could consistently shoot all A's on each of the 4 paper. At 8 yards, I would start dropping points. Many repetitions of this run proved this out. Guess what Manny's max range was for these same targets? 8 Yards! Only one more than me, and he is a top 10 in the world shooter of course. Yet in matches, time and again I see C and even A class shooters studying stages and planning on shooting partial targets, moving parallel to the targets, at 10 yards (this would be max of 4 yards for Manny), or full targets at 15 yards! Good luck to them!

Here is another post in another thread on the subject.

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=209995&page=2#entry2339858

[Nimitz]

no kidding ... the times shooting on the move is beneficial are a lot less then most people think but you still see tons of people do it .... now shooting into and out of positions is something else entirely but I don't define that as "shooting on the move"

In Brian's book he has a great section on 5 awareness exercises which basically go to what you were saying about drawing and having your sights appear exactly where you want them without any conscious thought. Since I started working on these a few months ago I've noticed a considerable improvement in the gun being exactly where I want it to be without a lot of "hunting around" as in the past. I've only just started on exercise #3 but these are well worth the effort to master ....

[motosapiens]

A chief accuracy and speed check as you discussed and mentioned, it what % of points possible you shot, before penalties applied. This should be between 92 and 94 for major PF, maybe a point less for minor?

I think you probably need to be shooting the same or better points for minor, which means you can only afford half as many charlies. Looking at the results from the last few nationals *seems* to confirm this haphazard guess.

[motosapiens]

no kidding ... the times shooting on the move is beneficial are a lot less then most people think but you still see tons of people do it ....

I think it's fair to say that not everyone chooses the right places to shoot on the move, but depending on the stage it can make a BIG difference. And, as I've always argued, if you practice shooting on the move, and get good at it, you will realize significant benefits in other areas too. You'll be much more aware of your sights, and it will seem much more natural and instinctive to shoot your way into and out of positions. I think in general, shooting on the move is underemphasized by non-national-level shooters.

[Robco]

no kidding ... the times shooting on the move is beneficial are a lot less then most people think but you still see tons of people do it .... now shooting into and out of positions is something else entirely but I don't define that as "shooting on the move"

In Brian's book he has a great section on 5 awareness exercises which basically go to what you were saying about drawing and having your sights appear exactly where you want them without any conscious thought. Since I started working on these a few months ago I've noticed a considerable improvement in the gun being exactly where I want it to be without a lot of "hunting around" as in the past. I've only just started on exercise #3 but these are well worth the effort to master ....

Cool Nimitz. I cannot wait to get to those parts of Brian's book! Still listening to the first three parts over and over right now (On the Audio version!).

Yes, it is interesting to see how many points and seconds are wasted simply by us making POOR choices and decisions on how to shoot a stage. I rarely do any more, but sometimes I am still amazed when I see some other shooter do one differently than I had planned, and it is far better than my way! I just "missed" seeing the oppty when walking thru because I had my mind closed too early in the process.

In fact, I kind of rate a match by how many different ways their stages could be shot. When they are all straight forward with little options, it is boring to some degree. And limits the opportunities for "smarter" shooters to exploit and gain an edge due to their creativity.

One related thing I learned from Saul Kirsch's videos was that we all have to develop our own database of our own shooting. Time everything in practice so we will know what our transition and split times are at all distances, how long it takes us to run 15 yards, or how distant we can shoot various targets on the move, etc. Only in this way will be able to decide on how to shoot a stage with options available.

I recall an awesome example stage in Area 3 2013 (the one where Blake won but forgot to go to chrono!). Anyway, the stage had many targets uprange, and also about 6 paper downrange, 40 yards downrange! There were two shooting areas all the way across the stage, one at the uprange end and one all the way down range, just in front of the 6 targets. So, the options were to shoot uprange arrays then run 40 yards to the downrange shooting area, or shoot all from the uprange shooting area. Man, talking about some math to work out in one's head to decide on that one. Everyone on my squad pussied out and shot all from uprange, and we had a former National champ, Merle Eddington, shooting single stack who I buddied up with. Unfortunately Merle got DQ'd as he began shooting this stage. Rattled by that happening, I took a ton of additional shots on the downrange targets, which were partials!! as insurance. TIME WASTING INSURANCE. Got all my hits but took a ton of additional time. Later, I found that Blake had chosen to make the 40 yard run and kicked butt on the stage. I chose poorly. The accuracy and fast shooting permitted on the downrange targets more than made up for the running time, even if one did not waste so much time on additional insurance shots like I did.

[Robco]

A chief accuracy and speed check as you discussed and mentioned, it what % of points possible you shot, before penalties applied. This should be between 92 and 94 for major PF, maybe a point less for minor?

I think you probably need to be shooting the same or better points for minor, which means you can only afford half as many charlies. Looking at the results from the last few nationals *seems* to confirm this haphazard guess.

Maybe you are right. Good on you for checking it out using the nats results.

[Robco]

no kidding ... the times shooting on the move is beneficial are a lot less then most people think but you still see tons of people do it ....

I think it's fair to say that not everyone chooses the right places to shoot on the move, but depending on the stage it can make a BIG difference. And, as I've always argued, if you practice shooting on the move, and get good at it, you will realize significant benefits in other areas too. You'll be much more aware of your sights, and it will seem much more natural and instinctive to shoot your way into and out of positions. I think in general, shooting on the move is underemphasized by non-national-level shooters.

I agree with all. Sometimes, like on a string of poppers at 15 yards, it is almost always better for iron sights shooters to shoot and run instead. Open might be able to do it on the move, and usually some will, some won't.

I discovered the exact same thing when I really started training myself to shoot on the move (SOTM)a year ago (that's right, in my second year as M class I was just beginning to train on it! ). It is the single best way I know of to train a shooter to learn to STAY GLUED to their front sights continuously. And yes, so nobody will think I am contradicting myself, shooting on the move is one of the few situations where I do use a strict, front sight focus! Since the gun is literally ALWAYS moving when SOTM, it is impossible to accomplish or call shots without a front sight focus. Anyone have a different viewpoint on this?

Anyway, clearly, the more you can be moving while shooting the faster you can get thru the foot race of each stage (assuming accuracy standards sustained and alternatives like shoot and run are not faster on the clock). I ALWAYS love to find opportunities to shoot leaving and shoot entering locations. The upper body is leaning and moving, even if the feet may not be during these methods, so not strictly SOTM, but very big time savers if done right. But as Max Michel put it, ONLY shoot a target leaving or one entering, "IF you could successfully engage it in the alpha, on the move." Very good decision criteria and advice there.

I even bought a waterbed, and set it up on my range to stand on while making it jiggle and swash back and forth under me, while shooting lots of various targets! To make the gun movement arbitrary and beyond my control. Interesting. Not as effective as I had hoped because I used my "sea legs" instinctively to dampen the movement out! Here is a video of it I posted back in July! Some funny sh?t! I will go to any extent to try to figure out how to shoot better!

[bradsteimel]

Someone once told me "The trigger is an eraser". You can have everything right; stance, grip, sight picture, sight alignment and the trigger pull can/will erase all that you've done right up to that point.

Alan~^~

Amen!