natural point of aim [NPA]

[2650 Plus]

Where is it ? Why is it there ?IMHO it can be almost anywhere as long as the sights appear on the line your eyes see your sights on. Let me try to explain what I found in my own shooting position. By careful streaching around to the front ,I found that I could meet the discription of NPA pointing almost at right angle to my foot position, But the grip had to be changed to allign the sights. Also , by streaching around toward my back I could also establish a muscle balance at a line across my toes to the target. Again there was a problem with natural sight allignment and the grip had to change to permit correct allignment. I concluded that grip was more important , Established a proper grip first and then did the necessary streaching to achieve a NPA on my targer that provided the proper sight allignment. I avoided changing that all important grip , with its requirements that included finger position and the natural sight allignment to the maximum extent posible. If there are any rifle shooters on the forum, This does not apply. In rifle the NPA is far more important than most any other consideration. Good Shooting Bill Horton

[jackh]

This from Bill Blankenship" (six time National Champion)
"Perfect sight alignment is necessary to get good scores, and having a natural alignment of the arm, hand and gun to the eye will keep the sights perfectly aligned."

Notice he says "to the eye". You can move your feet anywhere, anytime after you establish your sights to eye as an aligned "unit" including the wrist, arm, shoulder and head.

We are speaking of bullseye kicking 45s here. I am really not sure if the elite AP and FP shooter would say the same.

[derekm]

I'm just a newbie and have been struggling for 18 months to get my averages above 83 or 84/100 - adjusting almost everything on the gun from time to time (as you do!!). I thought I was using my NPA, but decided to double check. Raising the gun, eyes closed, the front sight was off to the left, by around 4mm! A little filing and Dremelling on the inside faces of the (non-rotating) grip and my NPA is now dead on. The next three sessions, 10 cards each, gave me averages of 87.9, 88.9 and 88.1, with multiple cards over 90. IMHO a vast improvement literally overnight, so NPA, even if it seems a minor point, or if we are "sure" we have it sussed, is well worth double checking. As my hand and wrist muscles are now more relaxed, rather than holding to the right, my trigger control is much better. I now have much more confidence and am looking forward to a slow, but steady increase in average, now that I feel I have broken through a barrier.

[AAlex]

derekm,

It is quite often in shooting that you try something different and the results are mind-blowing and you feel like you've found the holy grail of shooting, yet the next time you try it it just doesn't work, even though you are sure you are doing exactly the right thing which you took great care to memorize.

I once went from 530 average to 580 overnight, and whatever I did right wasn't what I thought I did because afterwards the mediocricity went back to normal.


Regarding the NPA - I don't think there's such an animal in pistol shooting, at least for me. My pistol points wherever I point it and has no tendency to drift to an "NPA"

[2650 Plus]

Jack, I believe I am saying about the same thing Blankenship said. You mentioned the shoulder as being part of the equasion, and I agree completely. The problem with changing the angle of the shooting arm is that the eye is not on the shoulder, Its on the head and its relationship to the shoulder, arm wrist and grip can change when the angle of the body to the target changes. this moves the sight allignment and causes a missallignment in the sights to eye relationship. To continue, any time that relationship changes the feet position must change also.to reestablish the NPA with the target. The importance of NPA to the international shooter is best demonstrated in the sustained fire stages. The shooter starts in the ready ond raises the pistol when the light signals . IMHO he should start from exactly the same place and arrive at the target the same way every time. One post mentions no problem with NPA , saying that the pistol always gets to the right place and has no tendancy to drift in any direction. I would suggest he is a totally relaxed competitor or has not developed an accurate sense of what his boby is telling him about muscle tension and its effect on hold and relative stillness. Good Shooting Bill Horton

[derekm]

A point I should clarify (and indeed should have mentioned previously) is that I shoot 10m AP, not heavy cal. powder burners and the stance I use is a full 90deg to firing line, head full 90 deg to the right. Eye and arm are therefore in line, leaving the hold on the pistol as the variable.

Alex, I don't think I've found any Holy Grail, but with the sights aligned with a now relaxed NPA, I definitely have less "flinches", which I think is probably due to my hand being more relaxed, holding centre, rather than constantly holding in a little "right trim". Time will tell.

[Fred Mannis]

....I shoot 10m AP, not heavy cal. powder burners and the stance I use is a full 90deg to firing line, head full 90 deg to the right. Eye and arm are therefore in line, leaving the hold on the pistol as the variable.

My impression is that you selected the stance first, then modified your shoulder, wrist, grip to fit. Is that the case? Have you found that that this stance provides the most stability? Have you experimented with a less than fully open stance?

[2650 Plus]

When using the full open stance[ With a line straight accross my toes running to my target ] I must strain my neck muscles turning my head far to the right so as to see out of my glasses through the center of the lens. By using a less strained position I believe I achieve several advantages. Body sway in the full,open position translates to more movement of the gun to the target than I am willing to accept and the partially open position seems to reduce the movement relating to the sway. It is easier to look straight out of the shooting eye with far less strain during the match. The partially open position seem to allow a greater degree of relaxation , translating to a stiller gun on the target. The other extreme witth the feet at right angle to the targets produces an up and down movement instead of the sway. The movement is less extreme but not as controlable by me. That is it is more irratic. I must admit I spent very little time on the latter position and committed to the partially open approach as superior for me. Good Shooting Bill Horton

[AAlex]

Fred, Bill, as far as I know "open stance" means "facing the target", and I thought that term is the same in golf, baseball, tennis and shooting. Not being PITA or anything - just confused when you say one thing and use terminology that means exact opposite (or so I thought)

[David Levene]

Fred, Bill, as far as I know "open stance" means "facing the target

As I have always understood it, in pistol shooting a closed stance is facing the target and an open stance is facing at 90 degrees to a line to the target.

Could the difference be that in baseball, golf and tennis the target is actually the ball, not where you want to hit it.

[Fred Mannis]

This topic has been discussed at great length: /viewtopic.php?t=13266&highlight=open+stance

David's "inline stance" is probably the best descriptor and the one I should have used.

[AAlex]

Ah, now that "clears it up".
Looks like "open" vs "closed" depends on your definition of "firing line" and "line of fire" : )

[2650 Plus]

If you have " found It " don't let any of us talk you out of it. We dont all have to do this the same way. When you find something that works stay with it until you discover an inprovement. Good Shooting Bill Horton

[derekm]

Hi Guys
Just back home after 5 weeks vacation, so apologies for no replies.

Fred: I started with an approx 45% stance, then read an article on the coaching for the UK Olympic team, suggesting that the 90% stance could be a better bet. I tried it and it seems to work for me.

Bill: As above. I don't think I've found the Grail, but for me it seems to give a more consistent hold and the eye is more easily in line with the arm/gun/sights. The UK coaches gave many more reasons that are above my head, but it is their present recommendation/suggestion.

Maybe I find it better because for me, it is more easily repeatable. Feet parallel to the line is more easily judged than at an angle to the line, unless you have marks for foot position.

Just an interested newbie's two cents/pence worth!

[Steve Swartz]

Derek:

FWIW, not sure how being able to see "parallel" vs. "angle" is such an advantage, as the "natural" part of NPA suggests that the exact configuration will, of necessity, change as fatigue sets in etc?

Perhaps a definition of NPA that includes some desire outcome (like stability/predictability of hold) might be a more useful definition than something related to an absolute position of feet?

Just some random musings

Steve Swartz

(initially you may want to keep track of where your feet are as you learn how to manage your NPA. I believe though that at some point trying to put your feet in the same position will actually be counterproductive from putting them in the right position.)

[derekm]

I don't feel qualified or experienced enough to discuss variations of stance in detail, but can only mention what appears to work for me, in case others wish to try as well.

If however, anyone wishes to read the full article I mentioned (by Tom Readhead, the UK National Pistol Coach) I do have a photocopy. If you message me a fax number, I will send it off. The photos may not come through well, but the text should be readable. Sorry, but I'm still in the dark ages and don't have a scanner!