How much practice do most GMs do?

[Ron Ankeny]

And why the desire to perfect the "stand and deliver" classifiers, when that is NOT what wins matches ?

Because those skills can transfer into many areas of shooting and dry fire is cheap. Dry fire also helps to keep shooters sharp in the "off" season.

FWIW, I also set up some movement stuff in my home beginning in the living room, past the kitchen, and finishing in the back bedroom. Setting up in a position, reloading on the move, stepping out of the box as I draw, shooting targets as they appear, visualization, etc. all done dry fire, and those skills do win matches.

I know the thread started off about how much GMs practice, but practice is what got them there and it's worth the thread drift if it will give people a balanced perspective of the value of dry fire and its place in training. I would rather live fire than dry fire any day, but with arthritis, limited finances, -20 weather in the winter, etc., I choose to pretend the gun is going bang, bang.

[Ben Stoeger]

All this talk about dry-fire .................. when it seems to me this thread started out simply asking how much practice. And why the desire to perfect the "stand and deliver" classifiers, when that is NOT what wins matches ? Dry-fire will help get you started but it's live-fire that will keep your skills sharp. And testing your mental skills with "shooting challenges" at the local matches are what help you win again and again.

Not everyone that can shoot classifiers well can win big matches.

Everyone that can win big matches can shoot very well on classifiers.

[Mick]

The term "dry fire" has been perverted over the years.

My first experience with "dry fire" was with my Academy firearms instructor, a Marine and FBI agent who in August of 1980 sat me down and asked if I wanted to learn to shoot the revolver I was issued.

Of course I did. He sat me in a chair, put my hands in a two hand grip on the revolver, placed my finger on the trigger and said pull the trigger 2000 times. He said listen to the clicks, after the second one learn to slow down the pull and "stage" the trigger for a smooth let off. He said "Son, that's called dry firing and it will teach you how to pull the trigger without jerking the gun". He defined it for the class as "dropping the hammer on an empty chamber and reseting the mechanism to do it again indefinitely". It was in his lesson plan. I didn't get 2000 pulls that day but dry fired that revolver often. I don't dry fire much anymore.

These days you younger folks do much more than that when you "dry fire" to include draws, reloads, and other movements you associate with the shooting game. So you've changed a long standing term to define all the gun stuff you do. If I walked into class and said we're going to dry fire for an hour I would have to duck from the empty guns flying at me. If I said we're going to practice draws, reloads, and movements, I would likely survive longer. Unless you're in your mid 40s, you may not have even been playing with toy guns when professional instructors defined this term as learning trigger control.

"If you actually spent 20 years training people and did not figure this out, then I am not sure I can straighten you out on this forum."

Ben,

Here you go...

I live in a structured training environment where words have meaning and lesson plans can end up in court on deadly force issues. Definitions have real meaning. Taken in this context from those who defined this term long before I was playing with toy guns, you really don't dry fire as you describe. You may not know this as a result of not taking any formal training from a training regime backed by Government agencies ( I have no idea what you know). You can make up all the terms you want but they were still defined by professionals long before us to describe a specific task

they could back up in court. I figured this out a long time ago, when will you??? My training is all well documented.

I'd be glad to straighten you out.

=) no offense taken.

So when these younger speedsters say they DRY FIRED for hours to build their skills they are not talking about learning trigger control or we WOULD need to check their sanity!!!

[konkapot]

Mick is making some great points here, but nobody is really thinking about what he's saying.

Jake and Ben you are both great shooters. No doubt.

And like many great USPSA shooters you think that you are qualified to comment on conducting firearms training. Not neccessarily true.

The people that Mick (and I, and many others) train HAVE NO INTEREST IN SHOOTING. They don't care about transitions, a 3 second el Pres, or any of this "see what you believe you want to see" stuff that gets trotted out time and again on this forum.

Trainees, at BEST, want skills that will allow them to kill a badguy out to about 25 yards. At worst, they want to pass the minimum standards set by their agency. It's about a 30/70 split.

Another factor present in structured firearms training is TIME. As in NOT ENOUGH. And most of that time is spent taking a non-shooter and getting them to the point where they can in some manner meet the minimum standards. There is barely enough time for that, and if you're working with a struggling shooter, nowhere near enough for that.

Most people, especially males, are visual learners. A trainee needs to SEE holes in the target. Or, commonly, see "no" or "not many" holes in the target in order to start learning.

"See, your grip sucks, so all your shots went down there." Or, "See! Now that you've stopped jerking the trigger all your shots went right in the middle."

You can set up the most high-speed dryfire drills in the world for trainees......and get nowhere. Been there, done that. It has about as much substance to them as a video game.

An an ideal world, there would be time for dryfiring....and more time for live fire....and more time for force-on-force....and more time for the dozens of other skills that are not addressed.

This ain't an ideal world, and I think some of you are missing an opportunity to learn from Mick's posts. Or at least see that there's more going on in firearms than "transitions" and hours and hours of dryfire.

FY42385

[AWLAZS]

+100 On the police training. They would rather get out early then shoot extra. Dry fire works on draws and reloads and not much else for them.

But this is about GM's not the police. Right?

[rgkeller]

Everyone should listen to these old time law enforcement shooting instructors.

And someday you will be able to shoot as well as the average police officer.

[Jake Di Vita]

For the rest of the discussion - dry fire means everything you do with a gun to improve that isn't actually sending bullets down range.

I do have a question...

If dry fire doesn't make you improve very much....so the people you are training are doing mostly live fire - why is it that they don't even come close to having the skills and ability of an average GM? I've done very little live fire in my life, but a whole bunch of dry fire.

I really hope you don't say natural talent because that's the biggest load of horse puckey I've ever heard....my natural talent was being a fat uncoordinated kid.

[Ben Stoeger]

The people that Mick (and I, and many others) train HAVE NO INTEREST IN SHOOTING. They don't care about transitions, a 3 second el Pres, or any of this "see what you believe you want to see" stuff that gets trotted out time and again on this forum.

Another factor present in structured firearms training is TIME. As in NOT ENOUGH. And most of that time is spent taking a non-shooter and getting them to the point where they can in some manner meet the minimum standards. There is barely enough time for that, and if you're working with a struggling shooter, nowhere near enough for that.

I think these are 2 important ideas to respond to.

I think Dryfire is effective. If you aren't interested, or don't have time to do it, then WTF do you want me to say? Just because you (or your trainees, or whatever) arent interested or don't have time, that doesn't mean that dryfire doesn't work.

Dryfire was absolutly critical for me to learn TRIGGER CONTROL. I learned how to shoot badass groups by learning to pull the trigger without disturbing the sight alignment. You can do this pulling the trigger while aiming at a white wall.

[Woody Allen]

Not everyone that can shoot classifiers well can win big matches.

Everyone that can win big matches can shoot very well on classifiers.

Ok, it sounds very clever. Now tell us what you mean.

Do you mean:

Are there "match skills" that are learned to win big matches, and that developing these skills will also allow you to shoot very well on classifiers.

For example, I could practice stand and shoot 2x on 3 targets with reload and 2x on 3 targets all day long. I learned what---classifier skills.

Or I could practice box to box transitions with 2x on 3 targets with a reload between boxes. Match skills that will also allow me to shoot very well on classifiers.

In the context of this thread----with limited livefire resources, dryfire the box to box transitions, and save your live rounds for just working the gun----stand and shoot 2x on 3 targets with reload and 2x on 3 targets??????????

In summary, limited livefire resources--use your rounds for just working the gun--seeing sights lift, working out grip recoil sight tracking. Maximize your live rounds and focus only on these areas. Then dryfire everything else. Again to make it clear. Say have one hour of range time-spend it all just working the gun versus box to box transitions, movement etc.

This this what most of you are saying???? I am looking to glean ideas to maximize my livefire resources.

Edited March 19, 2008 by Woody Allen

[konkapot]

Hey Ben

I don't want you to "say" anything.

Ideally you might just listen.

Nobody is saying that dryfire "doesn't work." It does.

A hammer "works." Unless you're trying to change the clock on your VCR.

What some people are saying is that it's not appropriate for everyone, or every situation.

You sound defensive in your post. U mad?

FY42385

[Ben Stoeger]

Ok, it sounds very clever. Now tell us what you mean.

Do you mean:

Are there "match skills" that are learned to win big matches, and that developing these skills will also allow you to shoot very well on classifiers.

For example, I could practice stand and shoot 2x on 3 targets with reload and 2x on 3 targets all day long. I learned what---classifier skills.

Or I could practice box to box transitions with 2x on 3 targets with a reload between boxes. Match skills that will also allow me to shoot very well on classifiers.

What I am saying is that all the top shooters can absolutely destroy classifier stages. I think you need to get your skills to the point that you can shoot them well. I have to practice short course type drills in order to be able to do well on the short courses. Other people may not... I just kind of depends on where you are in your development.

[Ben Stoeger]

Nobody is saying that dryfire "doesn't work." It does.

A hammer "works." Unless you're trying to change the clock on your VCR.

You sound defensive in your post. U mad?

I think dryfire works better than the example you present.

I think this: would describe my feelings on the subject. I feel like I am trying to argue against a flat earther.

[Flexmoney]

Everyone should listen to these old time law enforcement shooting instructors.

And someday you will be able to shoot as well as the average police officer.

Comments like that are not appropriate for this forum.

And like many great USPSA shooters you think that you are qualified to comment on conducting firearms training. Not necessarily true.

I don't want you to "say" anything.

Ideally you might just listen.

Neither are those type of comments

I wouldn't think that I'd have to shut down a thread titled "how much practice do GM's do".

As for the consternation on terminolgy...here we are on a competition shooting forum talking about a competition topic with competition shooters.

40 years ago, a crack'r was what you put in your soup. Now, it has a different meaning depending on where and how you use it.

Everyone here ought to be able to post with respect. We ought to be opened minded enough to appreciate another's perspective.

I don't think it is it too much to ask. Ya follow...

- Admin.

[Crusher]

Without the DESIRE to improve a skill set (I dont' care what the skill is) there can be no improvement, without a PLAN to improve the skill set there can be no improvement, without the TIME to execute the PLAN there can be no improvement.

Some loose the desire, some have no/poor plan and still some don't have/make the time, a loss of any will cause STAGNATION (no improvement) at best and at worst (in some enviroments) may cause catastophic failure.

This theory pertains to more than shooting

Edited March 19, 2008 by Crusher

[Shay1911]

I am not a GM or close to it, but I am lucky to train with a couple. The difference, that I noticed, between them and the average shooter is their total commitment to the sport.

One of them dry fires a lot, an hour a day every day, and the other one live fires a lot, I'd say close to 2000 rounds a week. They are both at the same level, but from a different approach.

I don't think its the method that really matters, but the dedication, commitment and desire that they have. They both have to "schedule" a day where they don't think about shooting or shoot.

[AWLAZS]

Commitment is required for any type of training to work. I think even more is required for dry fire to work. Jake is an example. My guys at work are the opposite example. But both accomplished there goals.

[Mick]

"For the result of the discussion - dry fire means everything you do with a gun to improve that isn't actually sending bullets down range."

Here in lies part of the problem. Who actually defines what we do?

The newer guys take a long standing defintion and change to to meet their need when it is unecessary and incorrect.

When you properly define what you do it is easier to pass along.

But, not Jake, I or anyone else can teach you motor skills, You have what God gave you.

A good instructor can help you build the strong neural pathways you need through the Myelination process often called muscle memory.

Do you want to do a 3 sec El Prez? be specific. List what little details you do.

Be honest. A top 20 list shooter who responded here a few post back is the fastest shooter I know and likely can read the headstamps as the brass leaves the gun. He will admit that there is point shooting going on during those Universe Class

El Prez's. Do you admit this? I do it, you do it. Are you going to teach point shooting? If not, why?

If it were up to me everyone would make GM...

As far as Cops go, I've been one for 28 years and we don't want negative remarks here regardless how true they may be.

I shot an IPSC match years ago and saw how good most of you guys are. Although I know you would never harm or threaten me I realized there was a great deal more to learn and I needed to do that! I made it but most Cops don't care.

If you knew that I offer to open the range anytime for anyone and offer free ammo and will clean their gun but get virtually no takers from 600+ Officers, you would be surprized!

[badchad]

"For the result of the discussion - dry fire means everything you do with a gun to improve that isn't actually sending bullets down range."

Here in lies part of the problem. Who actually defines what we do?

I think that is part of the problem. As flex said were on a competition forum talking about practice for competition, and I want to know how, and specifically how much the GMs do it, as that's what I aspire to. Based on that I would say our working definition for dry fire practice would be along the lines of what Jake said and described pretty well in Steve Anderson's books, which teaches a lot more than trigger control. Now if you were to open your range with free ammo for me, things might be different;-).

[Ben Stoeger]

"For the result of the discussion - dry fire means everything you do with a gun to improve that isn't actually sending bullets down range."

Here in lies part of the problem. Who actually defines what we do?

I think that is part of the problem. As flex said were on a competition forum talking about practice for competition, and I want to know how, and specifically how much the GMs do it, as that's what I aspire to. Based on that I would say our working definition for dry fire practice would be along the lines of what Jake said and described pretty well in Steve Anderson's books, which teaches a lot more than trigger control. Now if you were to open your range with free ammo for me, things might be different;-).

Chad,

I have changed my perspective on the "how much to practice issue" in the last couple years. I no longer believe that high volume practice is the key to being at the top of the game. Don't misunderstand, high volume practice is necessary, but it isn’t the key.

The best shooters I know all practice very hard for years , AND hang their self worth on shooting. I know lots of guys that shoot more than I do, and never get any better. The bottom line is that the best shooters in the world feel bad when they screw up. I have heard stories of the Burner puking in the bushes before he shot. I have talked with a few of the top guys (that I wont name) that will be a wreck when they have a bad match.

So that’s it, I know lots of guys that care, and lots of guys that shoot, but the top guys do a LOT of both.

[moverfive]

For the rest of the discussion - dry fire means everything you do with a gun to improve that isn't actually sending bullets down range.

I do have a question...

If dry fire doesn't make you improve very much....so the people you are training are doing mostly live fire - why is it that they don't even come close to having the skills and ability of an average GM? I've done very little live fire in my life, but a whole bunch of dry fire.

I really hope you don't say natural talent because that's the biggest load of horse puckey I've ever heard....my natural talent was being a fat uncoordinated kid.

Jake - I am going to have disagree with you a little bit on the natural talent thing. I really do believe that aspect does come into play. And that would be by developing your style of shooting to your natural talents/skills. For example - there are GM's whose game is primarily built around pure speed (which is one of your primary assets) and then there are others that build around efficiency (which I would say Leatham is a prime example). I don't think anyone is going to confuse your style of shooting with Robbie's (meaning, how many times have you seen greased lightning and then slow and lumbering but yet end with the same stage time......and you wonder HOW????) So knowing one's natural ability, in its current form, is what is needed in order to gear their practice schedule around. Hopefully that made sense.

But I am with you 100% on this dry-fire thing. This is where someone can perfect many of "the basics," as I call them. The draw, reload, stepping out of a location while maintaining a sight picture, and etc. I always find it amusing to hear how someone says that they can do one of these basics in 'record' time.....but when I ask to show me that 'record time' drill 10 times in a row, they aren't able to produce. Dry fire will help you hone those skills to a consistent level that can be produced on demand. And it is that consistent ability that is needed to win a 10 stage match. And while this may be done in live-fire.....I tend to recommend you hone with dry-fire and then test with live-fire.

So how much practice does a GM do......as much as it takes to maintain and improve the level of consistency needed to fit their game.

[spook]

A good instructor can help you build the strong neural pathways you need through the Myelination process often called muscle memory.

I think of it like this:

A good instructor can teach you (rationally) the correct technique.

You, by yourself, can ingrain this technique by repetition, thereby "building the strong neural pathways you need through the Myelination process often called muscle memory."

Dry fire can offer you this element of repetition, as long as the technique you want to learn has not so much to do with the gun actually moving under recoil.

[Jake Di Vita]

moverfive,

I would have to say that the shooters ending technique is a result primarily from how they train and their focus in competition rather than "natural" abilities. Anyone can increase the speed of their running, their explosiveness, their visual acuity, etc... through proper and consistent training.

I think the main point I'm trying to make though is that it doesn't matter how naturally talented you are - if you don't put the work in you'll never be great. Yes I do have the asset of being fairly quick, but that was attained more through my training than anything else. Lumbering efficiency obviously works well for Robbie, but that isn't to say he couldn't change his style if he wanted to...not that he needs to at all.

[Mick]

I would have to say that the shooters ending technique is a result primarily from how they train and their focus in competition rather than "natural" abilities. Anyone can increase the speed of their running, their explosiveness, their visual acuity, etc... through proper and consistent training.

I think the main point I'm trying to make though is that it doesn't matter how naturally talented you are - if you don't put the work in you'll never be great. Yes I do have the asset of being fairly quick, but that attained more through my training than anything else. Lumbering and efficiency obviously work well for Robbie, but that isn't to say he couldn't change his style if he wanted to...not that he needs to at all.

Don't get fooled into thinking you can do everything a GM can do. Some of us have somewhat of a physical gift from God and our parents. Some have more than others. While you can improve skill levels from basic practice of movements and skill building there are those things called motor skills and genetic apptitude.

Adam had eyes like most of us will never have. You can't train that into a person so the natural ability does count for allot. I don't care how you train me for something, if I don't have a genetic code that let's my body operate at the higher level of some of these folks, I will never be equal to them.

Jake, if you have quick reflexes you can thank your family history not necessarily your training. Your training taught you how to use them to the best of YOUR ability and in this case you are built well for those functions. You say Robbie is lumbering but if you saw him 20 years ago you wouldn't say that.

He has a good genetic code and reflexes for what we do. He mastered it and now maintains it through training but eventually it will fall off. That's life. Sorry...

Folks get frustrated when they pay big money to go to some school but never can duplicate what they saw the GM do. They don't have that physical capability. I will never run a 4 second 40 yard dash no matter how hard I train. I can't make my legs move that fast. A person's reflexes are dictated by your genetic code. Take a timer to a group of people and have them slap the timer when it sounds. It will give you a baseline reflex time. Do it over and over and see if they get faster. They will reach a point where there is no further gain. You have reached the limits of their reflexes. Mario Andretti was a great racecar driver and when they studied his physiology in his prime they found he had faster reflexs than the average person by a tenth of a second. Doesn't sound like much but it made him a better high speed driver than allot of others!

My best buddy for years is classic proof of the genetic differences we have. He started a D shooter and I started as B. We practiced together for years doing the same thing. He got to B and I got to GM. His motor skills and genetic code just aren't built for the speed he needed.

Not everyone was BLESSED with good eyes, good reflexes, and a genetic code that allows your body to operate at a higher level that others. If you have these attributes and a desire to shoot well you may become GM!

[Jake Di Vita]

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying.

I'm not saying that a sloth necessarily has the potential to become an elite level sprinter....but they can get pretty good. Unfortunately most people use genetics as an excuse to hide behind. I know you aren't going to agree with me, and that's fine - we are all entitled to our opinion.

My auditory reflexes are not very good, but that doesn't stop me from having a pretty fast draw speed. Fast twitch muscle fibers can be trained - just like anything else. I am living proof of this.

I firmly believe anyone (assuming this person does not have any glaring physical (including uncorrectable vision) or mental disabilities) can become a GM if they want to. Most people just simply don't want it enough or aren't willing to do the work to get there. There is nothing wrong with that - it's just the truth. The reason I hate it when people say I have talent is because I know how hard I worked to get where I'm at - Talent had nothing to do with it. I don't like to think that I'm not in control of the development of my own abilities.

This is one of the best articles on talent that I've ever read. If you have a physical gift from God, great! That definitely helps. But it is in no way a requirement.

[el pres]

Disclaimer: not a GM...

Natural ability a lot of times is just the metal ability to see through with something, you could call it drive

or will, or need to be on top. Notice that people on top of their game are usually towards the top of any

game they choose to participate in. They look to the mere mortal like they just picked it up and new how to use it

but no one wants to know about the hours of practice they put in to the "obsession" to put in 110% to challenge themselfs..