Calling shots = Good hits?

[ben b.]

I'm C-card classified but think I'm a B-class shooter (FWIW), I am beginning to read the sights quicker in making shots. I've always been able to see the sights thru the shot break, when I took my shots at a leisurely pace. In matches I'm typically right around the top for points (or fewest points down). As I've started action pistol shooting, I've mostly improved my course management and that helps my times substantially, and suffered some accuracy decreases as I stopped watching the sights so carefully. Transitions between targets get the most focus currently.

I just compared shot score tabulations on my scores vs some GM & M scores, all at the same match. I get more A hits than they do, sometimes a lot more. On almost every stage. And many fewer D hits. This particular match I took 2nd/8 in L10.

If the better shooters (and they are definitely faster than me) are better at calling shots, are they calling C & D hits and that means they know that shot is good enough?

Edit: I am in no way saying these M & GM shooters are fast n sloppy, just that I get more A hits. I'm asking if these high level shooters are shot-calling C & D hits.

Edited February 19, 2009 by ben b.

[XRe]

Don't assume that a guy that shoots fast and gets sloppy hits is actually calling his shots

Shot calling is actually a separate thing from getting good hits. The two are interconnected, but.... Shot calling allows you to know instantaneously where the shot just went - that allows you to make up the shot very quickly if required, or move on smartly to the next target, or whatever. Patience and discipline on the sights and trigger result in good hits. You can get good hits without calling your shots - but you won't know they were good hits until you look at the holes in the targets.

What you will usually find, though, is that better shooters are doing both things in conjunction - they are seeing what they need to see, and properly manipulating the trigger to break a good shot on the target presentation they're given (patience, discipline) and following through by watching the sights lift and confirming that the shot went where they intended it to go (calling the shot) at the very moment the shot breaks. When these skills are all employed together, you will typically see a shooter who appears smooth and quick racking up As just as you're doing. When discipline is spotty (or non-existent), you see lots of Cs, Ds, Ms... When shot calling isn't there, you'll see post-shot hesitations creep in on top of bad hits.

[j1b]

I'm C-card classified but think I'm a B-class shooter (FWIW), I am beginning to read the sights quicker in making shots. I've always been able to see the sights thru the shot break, when I took my shots at a leisurely pace. In matches I'm typically right around the top for points (or fewest points down). As I've started action pistol shooting, I've mostly improved my course management and that helps my times substantially, and suffered some accuracy decreases as I stopped watching the sights so carefully. Transitions between targets get the most focus currently.

I just compared shot score tabulations on my scores vs some GM & M scores, all at the same match. I get more A hits than they do, sometimes a lot more. On almost every stage. And many fewer D hits. This particular match I took 2nd/8 in L10.

If the better shooters (and they are definitely faster than me) are better at calling shots, are they calling C & D hits and that means they know that shot is good enough?

That is a killer question! Love it!

Couple of potential thoughts - and then I'm going to love the varying opinions on this topic. It'll be interesting.

First, in some circumstances the answer is yes. I'd so more so with C's than D's. Many times a GM level shooter will call a shot a C or a potential A/C and not think twice about it. Sometimes those breaks go your way, and sometimes they don't. So there'll be stages where you're calling those shots and you drop 15 points because every dang one was a C. Other times you'll drop 2 points, because most were A's. As expected, normally it balances out - normally the shooter would drop 7-8 points and might find that acceptable.

In my experience any D is simply regarded as a lucky miss and would never inherently be tolerated. It's just too close to the line. Certainly at the higher levels of the game I believe this is true.

The reality is that as you get faster and faster you begin to give yourself an aiming zone. Some would contend that's a bad thing, and I'd agree, but I've also been at fault for aiming at a more general area on a target and calling it acceptable. That'll lead to C's. Everytime! No matter the speed. Shooting production has helped me realize the error of those ways and also caused me to realize that I do sometimes default to that bad habit.

Outside of that, the issues come around tolerances. It's hard to shoot an El Pres in less than 4 seconds. To do it, a lot of things have to happen. I don't know what they are, because I've never done one, but I've seen others do one. A lot has to happen. And when one little thing (blinking at the wrong time, finger pushes the trigger a little sideways instead of straight back, etc. etc.) goes wrong it tends to cause issues. Alot of times those issues show up as C's, D's and mikes.

My last point, and this'll be a little controversial, is that from what I've seen there are still levels within the GM class. The folks that are running in the top 5 or 10 at nationals are probably dropping the same or less points than the rest of us and doing it a lot quicker. A GM that is just making it over the 95% range is someone who's ship is a little less tidy. My limited classification is 94% and I suspect the primary issue is points.

Again - great question!!

Jack

[benos]

If the better shooters (and they are definitely faster than me) are better at calling shots, are they calling C & D hits and that means they know that shot is good enough?

In general, yes. They are calling their shots in the sense that they know they are getting at least hits. Even if they are a bit sloppy.

Shooters good at calling can call no matter what was going on when the shot broke, as opposed to having to shoot more deliberately, as in "finding - stopping - calling," over and over and over.

What a high-level GM can do better than anyone else is call/shoot the shot at the earliest moment the bullet will hit the target. With shooters with less experience, over a course of fire, many "delays" are introduced by the need to pause and confirm each shot/call before shooting it.

And as Dave brought up - shot calling doesn't necessarily = good hits. Calling your shots is calling your shots. It needs to happen no matter what. What you do, visually, to get good hits is another thing entirely.

be

[ben b.]

Thanks for replies.

So for example, in a open paper target (no hard cover paint)at 10 yards, a pair of called shots might be at the "middle area" of the target, rather than at "A-zone", and that's why you see so many Alpha-Charlies?

I've been going for the A-zone.

[benos]

On open targets, always shoot for the A zone!

Never blast at an area.

And don't confuse shot calling with aiming.

[ben b.]

... don't confuse shot calling with aiming.

Oooooh, Brian. I like that, think I just found a new sig line. Can I use it?

[j1b]

Thanks for replies.

So for example, in a open paper target (no hard cover paint)at 10 yards, a pair of called shots might be at the "middle area" of the target, rather than at "A-zone", and that's why you see so many Alpha-Charlies?

I've been going for the A-zone.

And let me clarify my earlier post. I think the idea of "area" shooting is more common than not. That said, I fundamentally don't agree with it. That said, I've witnessed myself doing it at times - it took shooting point intense matches like IDPA and production to make me realize how I may have lost a little focus.

Top (and I mean very top) shooters don't do this. The folks just below the top probably do to some degree.

Jack

[ben b.]

I'm shooting steel tomorrow. I'll be practicing snapping the eye from the " sights at shot" to "next steel center".

I did let some shots go my last match, knowing they were hits but not As as I moved too early on to the next target.

[ben b.]

Thanks for input on this.

Ben

[boz1911]

Thanks for replies.

So for example, in a open paper target (no hard cover paint)at 10 yards, a pair of called shots might be at the "middle area" of the target, rather than at "A-zone", and that's why you see so many Alpha-Charlies?

I've been going for the A-zone.

I've been pondering this thread and

this seems to be happening to me lately. Part of the game is to identify weaknesses and make them strengths. So guess what I'll be working on now.

[KGentry]

This is a very interesting topic and one I have been thinking about since reading it. I think shooting at areas of an open target are more common than most would admit. This is what is great about our game! The balance of going fast while being accurate!!!!

[G-ManBart]

Yep, I think it's a huge point to realize that calling your shots doesn't equal good hits. Shot calling only lets you know what the hits were (or very close to what they were). When everything is working perfectly even someone at my level will find that they'll often make up a shot incredibly fast. There's no time to "think" about it, it's just that the sights weren't where they should be when the shot broke so you make it up. I'd be willing to bet that the top handful of GM's can shoot a stage and without looking at the targets would be able to get really close to their exact points down just by running it through in their head a time or two.

Also realize that the more experienced you get the more you'll get a feel for what the hit factor should be on a stage and you'll decide ahead of time whether it's worth sacrificing a few points for a faster time. Other stages you'll figure out and realize that a point or two will make a big difference and you simply can't accept anything less than a C here and there. That's probably why there are stages where you're dropping less points than the winner...they'll give up those points to burn down the time to get a higher hit factor.

The good thing is that at least your accuracy is good and you're getting great points. For most folks it seems to be easier to let themselves ease up on the precision than try to go the other way (at least without getting tight and losing their rhythm). R,

[shred]

If you suspect yourself of 'Area Aiming', set up some hard-cover partials (with all or almost all of the 'A' open) by some wide open targets and shoot them.

Also try steel plates of about A-zone size next to paper targets and shoot them twice each.

Spectate for a bit (this is where the shot-calling comes in) and see what you do and what happens. Spread them out and do some index and acquisition work as well.

----

I see a lot of people drive the dot (or sights, but it's very popular with a dot) over to the middle of the target, stop it all nice and pretty, take a mental snapshot and then mash the trigger. When they miss, they'll say "but the dot was right there". That's not calling the shot, that's aiming & blinking.

[bkeeler]

----

I see a lot of people drive the dot (or sights, but it's very popular with a dot) over to the middle of the target, stop it all nice and pretty, take a mental snapshot and then mash the trigger. When they miss, they'll say "but the dot was right there". That's not calling the shot, that's aiming & blinking.

+1

I find myself doing this on steel. My mind kind of goes away and a think I saw the sights. (which I may have seen the sight but I did not stay with it until the shot was complete.)

Stay with the sights until they lift and follow through. You must stay with the shot the entire time until it is completed.

BK

Edited February 27, 2009 by bkeeler

[Duane Thomas]

I'd be willing to bet that the top handful of GM's can shoot a stage and without looking at the targets would be able to get really close to their exact points down just by running it through in their head a time or two.

I remember, years ago, reading an article by Cameron Hopkins where he talked about not believing what Masters (at the time there was no Grand Master rank) said about being to call their shots every time. So he's at a match when one of the top shooters - I want to say it was Plaxco, but won't swear to it on a stack of Bibles - had just burned down a stage. After UASC, Hopkins walks up to the Master and says, "Before you look at the targets, quick, what's the score?" The instant answer, something along the lines of, "All As except on the fourth target where I threw a C to 2:30". Sure enough....

The best El Prez I've ever done was 58 points in 5.25 seconds, during a class with Travis Tomasie. (Yes, I know some of you are laughing at me over that.) As soon as I was done shooting, Travis told me, "Close your eyes. Without looking at the targets, where were your hits?" My reply, "All As, good for windage and elevation, except one C apiece on targets 2 and 3, good for elevation but about an inch to the left of the A-zone, when I broke the first shot on the next target just before the front sight reached the A-zone." And on that rendition, reading the sights that well was EASY.

It's those moments, when you have a glimpse of your potential, that keep us going, I think. The drive to be able to perform at that level all the time.

[Jake Di Vita]

I remember reading that Jerry Barnhart used to routinely score his hits real time as he was shooting.

[Duane Thomas]

When I'm shooting my best, that's actually fairly easy to do. Actually, it's the fact I'm paying that much attention to the sights that allows shooting my best.

It all comes down to that Little Pointy Thing on the end of the gun....

[MemphisMechanic]

I'm shooting steel tomorrow. I'll be practicing snapping the eye from the " sights at shot" to "next steel center".

I did let some shots go my last match, knowing they were hits but not As as I moved too early on to the next target.

I'm a C/Bish shooter that just jumped over from IDPA. Plate racks thrown in to stages have been like kryptonite to me.

Try this. It was revealing for me. Go out to the range and bring white spraypaint. Don't paint the plates completely like you usually would, just paint a dot on each plate. Instant doubling in consistency. When the dots wore off, I shot new ones near the lower right edge of each plate (lefty here)... And was STILL more consistent than shooting a bare-steel plate rack in a stage.

Why? Because I'm area-aiming like a futhermucker. Sights somewhere on the plate? Okay, then it's time to slap.

Edited March 27, 2009 by MemphisMechanic

[Flexmoney]

Target SPOT.

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...;hl=target+spot

[benos]

I've put this story on the forum before, but it will fit here again.

I was talking with Matt McLearn, and he told me a practice lesson story. One day he was shooting El Presidente's - he shot over and over - with only a clean (no dropped points) being acceptable. He shot until he was satisfied that he shot the fastest clean run that he was capable of.

Then he taped no-shoots on each side of each targets A zone, so basically only the A zones were visible. And I can still remember how he looked me when he asked - "And you know what?" I shook my head no. "I shot faster" he said. That only surprised me for about a second, until I realized the meaning behind. With the no-shoots, he had to see more precisely, so he shot faster.

be

[JThompson]

I've put this story on the forum before, but it will fit here again.

I was talking with Matt McLearn, and he told me a practice lesson story. One day he was shooting El Presidente's - he shot over and over - with only a clean (no dropped points) being acceptable. He shot until he was satisfied that he shot the fastest clean run that he was capable of.

Then he taped no-shoots on each side of each targets A zone, so basically only the A zones were visible. And I can still remember how he looked me when he asked - "And you know what?" I shook my head no. "I shot faster" he said. That only surprised me for about a second, until I realized the meaning behind. With the no-shoots, he had to see more precisely, so he shot faster.

be

Bring on the No-shoots!

[boz1911]

I've put this story on the forum before, but it will fit here again.

I was talking with Matt McLearn, and he told me a practice lesson story. One day he was shooting El Presidente's - he shot over and over - with only a clean (no dropped points) being acceptable. He shot until he was satisfied that he shot the fastest clean run that he was capable of.

Then he taped no-shoots on each side of each targets A zone, so basically only the A zones were visible. And I can still remember how he looked me when he asked - "And you know what?" I shook my head no. "I shot faster" he said. That only surprised me for about a second, until I realized the meaning behind. With the no-shoots, he had to see more precisely, so he shot faster.

be

Thanks, I have never seen this story before........for a paragraph that's a lot to think about.

[j1b]

I've put this story on the forum before, but it will fit here again.

I was talking with Matt McLearn, and he told me a practice lesson story. One day he was shooting El Presidente's - he shot over and over - with only a clean (no dropped points) being acceptable. He shot until he was satisfied that he shot the fastest clean run that he was capable of.

Then he taped no-shoots on each side of each targets A zone, so basically only the A zones were visible. And I can still remember how he looked me when he asked - "And you know what?" I shook my head no. "I shot faster" he said. That only surprised me for about a second, until I realized the meaning behind. With the no-shoots, he had to see more precisely, so he shot faster.

be

Of course he shot faster! He had to keep the hit factor up, and since he knew he'd have more penalties from the no shoots he had to shoot faster! Makes sense to me

Great story Brian! Thanks for sharing!

Jack

[XRe]

With the no-shoots, he had to see more precisely, so he shot faster.

Is it that, or is it that the guidance algorithm works more quickly when it doesn't have to decide where the A-zone is?

I don't doubt that you're right, that having a higher "risk" required him to dial up the sight a bit, but... having visual "bumper rails" on the desired targeting area provides a much more definite, immediate confirmation that the gun is where you want it. In effect, you can "area aim" on zebra targets (hardcover or no-shoots) - if its brown, mow it down (). I'm not talking conscious recognition of the scoring area, but the subconscious motor programs that are driving the gun for you - there's not as much observe/decide/adjust cycle, because there's contrast to the high scoring zone vs. the non-high scoring zone (as oppose to a flat brown target, where the algorithm has to decide if the gun is in the A-zone or not, and adjust appropriately). With zebras, it only has to adjust in the vertical dimension....

(yes, I've been studying kinesiology and motor programming a bit )