TargetTalk

Steve Swartz wrote:(p.s. "match nerves?" c'mon. that is a human [process] problem; not a mechanical problem to be solved with a mechanical adjustment)

Steve, match tension can affect any shooter; the degree and result of that tension can vary from match to match and, obviously, throughout a single match.

Any shooter who can honestly say that they have not had additional tension the first time they move up to the next level of match, club, regional (state), national, continental or world/Olympics, is an extremely fortunate person.

How many of us have regularly broken records, at whatever level, in training matches but have not been able to do it in a proper match. Sergei Phyzianov's 593 Air Pistol record has been frequently broken by world class shooters during training since it was set in 1989. Nobody has managed to do it in a World Cup or higher.

Similarly, Buljung's 584 Standard Pistol record has been broken many times in training but never in a qualifying match (which are admitedlly few and far between).

It is common to see the middle of the target disappearing during training at top matches. How rarely is that fantastic ability replicated during a big match.

The way that tension manifests itself is variable but to say that it cannot produce a mechanical difference e.g. tight shoulders is to ignore a real potential problem.

Steve Swartz wrote:David:

Aside from your point about the calibration of electronic targets (never more than one click out of calibration- at the absolute worst; assuming competent range personell), the rest of your points about lighting etc are, as the engineers would say, "insignificant."

Well inside of one click.

Steve Swartz

(p.s. "match nerves?" c'mon. that is a human [process] problem; not a mechanical problem to be solved with a mechanical adjustment)

Steve Swartz

Steve,
Lighting makes a significant difference - it's certainly not unusual for me to have to move up or down 2 or 3 clicks between ranges. I also personally find I sometimes need to do the same sideways. I have no scientific explanation for the latter it just happens - so I adjust the sights. End of problem and shoot goes fine.

As David mentions there are numerous physiological considerations which can affect the shooter and the POI. We all know tension affects muscles and that can certainly affect where a shot ends up. Now the proper solution is to de-stress and calm down. In a match environment that isn't always possible - it comes down to training again.

Nicole,
You seem happy to shoot loads of targets and see what's happening at the end. Great - if that works for you then fine. However I would argue that is not the most effective way to maximise your shooting (scores) and when coaching people I would not use that advice. Far, far too many people are scared of the sights and hence are reluctant to change them - in case they mess them up. Shooters need to get used to changing them frequently so that they are comfortable with doing so in any set of circumstances. They should also perfect the art of shot calling such that given a small number of shots they can spot where a sight tweek is needed. And lastly no I'm not perfect, far from it - as David can attest <g>, I do however know when to move my sights as equally when to leave them alone.

Rob.

David Levene wrote:What about the myriad of other factors that can affect shot placement (especially in a match). These could include, in no particular order:-

Different range lighting to what you are used to.
Different target height (still within the rules).
Match tension.
Electronic targets (they can all have different zero).

Do these produce more or less variation than is explained by your own shot-to-shot variability even under constant conditions? If it's more, then you should change your sights and it may not take many shots to decide that. If it's not, then you should not, or at least, not without a lot of shots, which indeed might be more than you get in the whole match. If you're the hypothetical robot shooter I described earlier, it takes only one shot, even if it's off by only a little.

But most shooters aren't robots and the causes you cite (with the exception of "match nerves") seem likely (at least to me) to be noise level or, as Steve suggested, "insignificant." The lighting on one AP range may be slightly different than on another, but it's not like the difference between dusk and bright sun! And while being nervous may certainly produce a large effect, I'd be surprised if this produces a consistent effect (always the same amount, always the same direction) that could be corrected by adjusting the sights. When I'm nervous, my group just gets larger and less predictable in all directions. Maybe you're different.

aurorapolice02_11 wrote:Two shots in the same area after calling them elsewhere is enough data in the shooting world to change your sights. ... I am trying to provide quality advise for new shooters.

Then you're not very good at it, because new shooters are the ones most likely to exhibit the greatest shot-to-shot variability, making it that much more difficult to diagnose a problem with the sights. They need far more shots or a greater discrepancy to be determinative than does an expert shooter and absolutely should not be changing their sights based on only two shots. Your advice may be suitable for the very best shooters.

CR10XGuest wrote:On the line for the Presidents 100. If the first shot is not where I called it... out comes the screwdriver. You know, the light is really different at 7:00 am depending on the rain, sun, fog, hangover, etc.

I've remarked several times that in a high power rifle match, crosswinds and different lighting conditions certainly require sight changes. Do you suppose an outdoor 50/25 yard match with a 1911 is more like an outdoor rifle match or an indoor air pistol match?

RobStubbs wrote:Lighting makes a significant difference - it's certainly not unusual for me to have to move up or down 2 or 3 clicks between ranges. I also personally find I sometimes need to do the same sideways.

Given that you've already indicated that you believe there are lots of reasons your sights could be off and don't believe even a statistical analysis would allow you to isolate the specific cause, how does it happen that you're now sure it's lighting?

The choices on offer seem to be

Move the sights based on the way I am shooting today knowing I can move them again if needed.
or
Leave them aloan because I MIGHT go back to the way I have been shooting recently.


Move the sights.

Nicole Hamilton wrote:

RobStubbs wrote:Lighting makes a significant difference - it's certainly not unusual for me to have to move up or down 2 or 3 clicks between ranges. I also personally find I sometimes need to do the same sideways.

Given that you've already indicated that you believe there are lots of reasons your sights could be off and don't believe even a statistical analysis would allow you to isolate the specific cause, how does it happen that you're now sure it's lighting?

Nicole,
No disrespect but try reading what I wrote. I said lighting makes a difference - I know it does because I shoot on ranges with different light levels and the levels have been measured. I also shoot on the two main ones regularly and it's always the same.

It also makes emperical sense if you think about the principles behind the sub six aim and how it is vastly more accurate than may be expected.

Anyway lets try and stick to the topic rather than chuck mud around.

Rob.

RobStubbs wrote:No disrespect but try reading what I wrote. I said lighting makes a difference - I know it does because I shoot on ranges with different light levels and the levels have been measured. I also shoot on the two main ones regularly and it's always the same.

So why in the world did you disagree with me earlier when I suggested that the way to identify what was going on was to collect the data and analyze it to see if there was a pattern? I tried to be clear that I thought eyeballing it was sufficient, just so long as you did it. You now claim to be doing just exactly what I suggested, looking not just a couple shots but rather at an accumulation of data. So, as you say, no disrespect, but perhaps you should try reading what I wrote.

The choices on offer seem to be

Move the sights based on the way I am shooting today knowing I can move them again if needed.
or
Leave them aloan because I MIGHT go back to the way I have been shooting recently.

Not sure why you would make that claim (about what the "two choices" are); nobody else here did!

Steve Swartz

(p.s. you've got a journalism career all sewn up!)

Nicole,
My point is that I was illustrating an example where material changes affect the POI - something you seem to disbelieve. That is a specific instance and a pair of ranges I know extremely well. If however I went to another range I would not collect a bulk set of shot data to determine whether or not my POI was different from my home range. I would typically adjust the sights after a couple of shots in my sighting series and then carry on shooting sighters until I was happy, that may well involve more 'sight tweaking'.

So rather than trying to pick holes in poeples discussions, pray tell how you'd approach such a scenario ?

Rob.

RobStubbs wrote:My point is that I was illustrating an example where material changes affect the POI - something you seem to disbelieve.

If it seems that way to you, it would have to based on something other than anything I've ever written. I thought I was extraordinarily clear that of course I imagine there are lots of factors that might affect POI, running the gamut from obvious to obscure. With enough data, I believe the relationships can even be discovered, which apparently is what you've just done regarding the lighting. I've also reiterated ad nauseum that whether these effects are large or small compared to an individual's ordinary shot-to-shot variability is, well, dependent on the shooter. In my case -- and likely enough, I'm not as good a shooter as you are -- my own variability is way more than adequate to explain a single target such as the one that began this thread, without having to conclude I should adjust my sights. For me -- and I suspect, others of similar ability -- adjusting my sights without more data is not the way to bet. The odds just don't favor it. What more is there to say???

In my case -- and likely enough, I'm not as good a shooter as you are -- my own variability is way more than adequate to explain a single target such as the one that began this thread, without having to conclude I should adjust my sights. For me -- and I suspect, others of similar ability -- adjusting my sights without more data is not the way to bet. The odds just don't favor it. What more is there to say???

Nicole:

What I am going to say may be strange, but the answer is for that group in the first picture (or a series of shots with that distribution) and the shooter is calling your shots consistently centered, then adjust the sights. And record it and continue to shoot to see if the shots migrate towards the center of the target.

Suppose the shooter is are doing something different that is not related to the environment. So what, for 20 shots (1/3 or 1/2 of the match) the shooter did it and it's produced a pretty consistent pattern. Maybe the way they were setting up before had been overridden by something better. Who knows. What we do know (or are tracking) is that the shooter can gain center hits (and increase points) by adjusting the sights.

Training in an ongoing process. Yes, we want to limit the variables, but like my Grandpa told me about the mule. "After hitting it one time and it still don't move, you might want to check and see if it knows something that you don't." Saved my stupid butt from a run in with a snake one time. Durn mule was smarter than me.

Anyway, back to the point. I'm not your or the shooters coach, but a shooter good enough to shoot that group IS consistent enough to move the sights. Maybe that's where the support / explaination needs to be.

One time I was shooting in a 2700 Bullseye match where that sun was kinda behind the targets. At the start of the .45 agg, Willie Trowell (one time .22 Champ at Perry) looked and me and said move your sights. Well, I had fired one of the best centerfire matches I'd ever had to date, so I wasn't really intending on adjusting the sights. I was going to put them exactly where they were for the centerfire long line.

After the first .45 slow fire string and we came back to the line, Willie said adjust your sights. And pointed to the target. Well after shooting a solid 94 or something like that, I said why, I had a pretty good score? Willie points at the target and says "LOOK!" Illuminated from behind you could see that my top target that was shadowed by the backer had a very nice and round hole behind it, but about 1.5 inches high. But since I "thought" I was shooting well, I had not listened at first or even noticed it when I was shooting the centerfire portion. Adding up the extra points for the strings I could have probably have gained 6 to 8 points on the centerfire aggegrate with just a couple of clicks. It taught me a lesson.

Yes, that group is good enough to move the sights by, if the shooter is consistently calling the shots good. It doesn't take a lot of math for that (And I didn't even have to fall back on my engineering degrees get to the explaination). I think that's all I (and a couple of others) are trying to say.

Cecil

Cecil, I appreciate that your comments and advice are quite reasonable.

My advice on calling a shot and moving sights based on that applies to both NEW and EXPERT shooters. It's all basic shooting. All expert shooters do differently than new shooters is apply the basics more consistently and proficiently. There is nothing in shooting that needs to be "kept" from new shooters. ALL shooting techniques and practices can be utilized by ALL shooters.

Also, I would like to know what qualifies you to use poor reasoning in basic shooting knowledge, therefore giving bad shooting advice. You seem very adamant and confrontational about your stance on this topic of moving sights. I know what top shooters do with their sights, I've seen them do it. I have watched many finals on electronic targets with the world top shooters. I have seen the screen where the shots are and have seen them click sights. I have also shot alongside these shooters. I know what my qualifications are to give my advice. I would always warn new shooters against taking advice from a shooter who has not shown some sort of proficiency using their advice.

Once again, your advice is poor. Go back and look at the target...count how many shots are above a horizontal centerline versus how many are below. If you count you will see many more shots are above that line than below the line. If you still see no need to change the sights then you are just stubborn in your poor shooting practices. It's fun to shoot against people like you who are unwilling to change for the advancement of your technique. In poker they call people like you "dead money".

This is the shooting world, not the science or engineering world. Please do not confuse the two.

Mike Douglass

Mike, I'm sorry you feel I've been uncooperative and unresponsive to your points and perhaps disrespectful. On the other hand, I'm not terribly surprised as this is how I've experienced you, also, and these experiences do tend to go in pairs. Perhaps we can both do better. I'll take your feedback to heart and try to do my part.

This is a slight change of tack and my attempt at explaining why you should change sights rather than look for positional or technique errors during a match. There are a couple of reasons why the sights should be clicked. 1) it's so darn easy and simple to do. It gives instant feedback as to whether you were right or wrong. Looking for errors of technique could lead you down the wrong path and may not solve the problem.
2) Mentally the latter is bad practice. During a match you want good and positive mental feedback. So to go hunting errors is counter productive and negative reinforcement. I would also argue that it will produce lower scores. Now that's not to say if we spot obvious flaws in technique such as no follow through we shouldn't address them during the match but don't go searching.

I think I can follow what I was trying to say - over to you guys and gals.

Rob.

C'mon all you maths exponents,

Put the slide rules away and get real.
The better executed shots are grouping away from the ultimate shot placement.
Adjust the sights to position this group in the center.
(How do you know the sights weren't out in the first place)

What could be more simple.

Anything else is overcomplicating the issue.

Making the sight adjustment will add points to the score. Seems like the thing to do. 15 10's vs 15 9's seems like reason enough ;~)

David Levene wrote:

Nicole Hamilton wrote:Given just a single target, e.g., the one posted at the beginning of this thread, I don't think that's enough data to tell you if the sights should be adjusted.

Are you suggesting that you would carry on shooting a match, having shot those 20 shots, without adjusting your sights.

For some reason, and I don't care what it is, the group is forming higher than it should. A match is not the time to worry about what, if anything, is going wrong. A match is the time to get the highest score you can. Whatever is making the shots go high is doing it pretty consistently. Adjust the sights and take the extra points.

I cannot believe the long drawn explainations on if this poor chap should alter his sights. statistical analysis may be all well and good in determining problems in training but in competition not a chance, you go by gut instinct if you should alter your sights.

If I was shooting like that I would alter my sights not reach for my calculator or wait for more data. Maybe there is a good reason for why his group has crept higher but you don't get points back for being able to explain why you dropped them.

In the real world of competition we just get what we shot, not points for technical merit.

David

dave_samK11 wrote:I cannot believe the long drawn explainations ...

That's okay. I cannot believe that people still pile on even after the fight's over.

Fight's over. It was fun and spirited. But for this engineer, Nicole won.
John

Who said the fight was over?

Did someone surrender their position, I must have missed it?