TargetTalk

Mr. Horton, please excuse me for being very picky on this point, but I have a technical background. One of the challenges I deal with when solving technical questions is being exact with how something was measured or determined or concluded.

My assumption from your description would be that the army actually placed a pressure sensor on the trigger of its top shooters and measured the increase in trigger pressure versus time. That is very different than observing the top shooters and watching how long it is before the shoot breaks once they reached the hold area. Did the Army, in fact, use a trigger pressure sensor?

I find using the slow, steady increase in trigger weight helps me greatly with the 45 because I have a tendency to jerk the pistol greatly, breaking the wrist in some direction in anticipation of the recoil. I try to use the same approach as I use with the Std pistol, AP and FP, but have to add the slow-down thought to over come the bad habit. Unfortunately for the 45, I just don't put enough effort consistently over a long period to develop skill and competence with that weapon.

Thank you
Pete S

For Pete S. While I was shooting for the army team I was involved primarilly in developing my own skills . Most of us were there just to represent the Army and win matches, There was little emphasis placed on very technical matters. We were not technicians and didn't become deeply involved in these matters because we concentrated on just those issues that would improve our performance the next day or the next match. It wasn't very cereble but it sure worked . Good Shooting Bill Horton

Steve:

I'm jumping in late to this party, but I've got a few ideas that have been rattling around in the vast expanse between my ears for some time about methods to build trust in the hold regardless of what a shooter sees.

As you know, we often use technology to diagnose our struggling shooters but it mostly revolves around measuring trigger manipulation to ensure constant motion. (Remembering that 99% of the time I'm involved in "hamburger" not "filet mignon" type shooting.) While that's effective, it does not address your question of how to build trust in the hold to help allow a controlled release. I think that mistrust of the visual cues may contribute to a rushed press or the dreaded chicken finger in search of sight perfection.

I may be rehashing old information that I read some time in the past, but here are two ideas, one technical and one not so much:

Rig a RIKA machine to read the laser pointer and generate an audible 'happy tone' whenever the impact of a shot would be in the designated wobble area, in Pete's example the 9.5 ring. The shooter would focus on continuing the press as long as the tone was audible. If the tone disappeared or stuttered as the hold deteriorated, abort the shot. Using this biofeedback, the shooter could determine what sight picture was good enough and build confidence to release the shot on demand.

Secondly, our big headed learnin type folks tell me that feedback to the subconscious that is concurrent with the action performed (or within about .3 seconds) is far more effective for long term learning. Practically, we see the advantages when shooting on steel targets. Perfom the action correctly and ring the bell. Incorrect behavior results in deafening silence. The subconscious picks up the cues rapidly and fixes things in short order to make the noise every time. As the student becomes more skillful, we simply reduce the size of the steel, in essence reducing the acceptable margin.

The point lurking in all that was that the audible feedback really seems to help rather than looking up at a paper target or computer screen after the event is over, at least as far as the subconscious is concerned. How about hanging a small gong target behind the FP/SP/AP paper target that is the size of the 9.5 ring. Each time the trigger behavior is performed within the margin for error, the bell rings and the subconscious gets a cookie.

Interested to hear your thoughts. Might be worthless ideas, but then again, most days I'm stuck teaching with plastic guns.

When all else fails, there's always the aim-high-right-and-yank method. Saves a lot of training time.

Bill:

It's great the the USAMU had plenty of other people doing the cerebral stuff- trust me, somebody (not all of the shooters for sure) was being paid to do an awful lot of thinking. While it might be true that the Army probably just stumbled over the keys to good technique "by accident" (200 years of tradition unhampered by progress) I know better. Somebody else did all the thinking so that you didn't have to. Nothing wrong with that at all- I'm just saying just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen. The USAMU coaching staff that I am familiar with do "A Metric Buttload" of thinking on a regular basis. It might havce been different back in the day . . . but again, I doubt it.

Keith:

O.K., I know what you're saying (although I still can't get over the idea of the FBI doing "hamburger" shooting! But I know what you mean.)

- Agree with you totally on constant motion-chicken finger-trusting hold scenario. The combat/IPSC/IDPA guys I work with are great "case studies" of what you describe.

- Happy Tone training is fabulous. It's a great tool for overcoming the shooters natural inclination to only break a shot when things look "right" (which mean by the time the round clears the muzzle, it's no longer "right" at all AND generally the shooter is under the gross misconception that the *entire* sight picture [rear, front, target] have to be "perfectly lined up." Sheesh.) Happy Tone can help break that syndrome- HOWEVER what has your experience been with a) the amount of Happy Tone training required; and b) the persistance of the Happy Tone induced epiphanies? Happy Tone (IMNSHO) is a great "Ice breaker" but the shooter has to overcome an awful lot of self induced BS to really accept good process at an intuitive level.

How do we re-enforce and "Burn In" the lessons of Happy Tone training?

- Well, the answer to our questions lies (albeit partially) in your second point- whether you are a "Skinnerian Behaviorist" or not, you need to shock the pleasure center for perfectly executed behaviors, and apply voltage to the pain center for not executing perfect behaviors.

Oh wait- we live in the USA- so we can't do that!

The problem with steeel plates etc. is that we can frequently do the "right" things and not score a hit- and, more frequently, do several counterbalancing "wrong" things and still ring the bell.

But I'm actually quibbling of course.

You raise two very important tools in the toolbox for training our Happy Meat Puppets to deliver accurate fire consistently.

What would be great is if we could hook the FTVS system to monitor and reward shots that break when the sights are aligned perfectly . . .

. . . then again, the vast majority of shooters (even our Olympic Team) do not have access to the technology and/or intelligence behind the technology to make any of this work . . .

Reference the USAMU and what was going on . Hell, Steve, I was there ! Any thinking going on was within the shooting group , not the coaches at that time, and we were thinking in prectical terms about how to deliver a ten on the next shot. Bonnie Harman the shooter also National Champion did more orriginal thinking than occurred during the rest of the 12 yrars I was there after he took over the position of head coach. He understood the importance of positive thinking and visualization to assist the shooter in raising his / her performance level. I never heard a word about either from the group of coaches assigned as contemporaries. On a previous post you said something about perfect sight allignment and releasing the shot as you swing toward the center of the aiming point. That is almost opposite of what I do. I am perfecting sight allignment with the trigger finger applying steadily increasing pressure and sustaining my minimum arc of movement until the shot fires. Good Shooting Bill Horton

Bill H wrote - ...I am perfecting sight allignment with the trigger finger applying steadily increasing pressure and sustaining my minimum arc of movement until the shot fires. Good Shooting Bill Horton"

This was the method taught me in the early 70s by LTC Miller USA Ret. It worked quite well when I was young, studly, eagle eyed and not smart enough to shoot badly. With one on one coaching and 5 days a week practice, I did not have to think. I lettered on the college tennis team back then, so my arm was quite strong. Now today, none of those qualities apply...

Today the biggest thing missing is my ability to keep my eye still and stay on the sight. Dot or front, my eye wanders off from looking at the sight. Even with a prescription lens. It doesn't go to the target. Lately I am trying to look at the target with dot per Zins. This only works if my hold is really solid which it often is.

The following, Steve Swartz wrote:How do we re-enforce and "Burn In" the lessons of Happy Tone training?

- Well, the answer to our questions lies (albeit partially) in your second point- whether you are a "Skinnerian Behaviorist" or not, you need to shock the pleasure center for perfectly executed behaviors, and apply voltage to the pain center for not executing perfect behaviors.

Let's add in some Ed Hall thought. I've actually been "thinking" about this very thing, but not in the physical realm of tones and such.

How do we react to tens vs. sevens?

Most of us maintain a calm composure, void of emotion as we continue to fire OK shots, some of which hit the ten. Does that describe you, the reader of this post?

What about our emotion when a wide shot fires totally out of our acceptable location?

A lot of us put a bunch of emotion into that one mistake. We sometimes will even make physical gestures and sounds that transmit our displeasure to those around us.

We then go on to stare at it, curse it, suggest how it was the sole ruination of such a possibly great result, etc.

Now, let's look at our subconscious. It loves emotion and doesn't really care whether it's love, hate or anger. The subconscious doesn't really judge at all. But, it does like us to experience excitement.

Steve Swartz also wrote:What would be great is if we could hook the FTVS system to monitor and reward shots that break when the sights are aligned perfectly . . .

. . . then again, the vast majority of shooters (even our Olympic Team) do not have access to the technology and/or intelligence behind the technology to make any of this work . . .

Athletes have been excelling based on their own inner capabilities for quite some time. I think a reward/penalty system can be incorporated within the athlete's psyche.

I've often wondered about the following:

1. What would be the result over time for a shooting athlete who puts all kinds of emotion into firing in the ten ring and does nothing for those that are wide, effectively ignoring them?

2. What would be the result over time for a shooting athlete that is only shown the direction of a shot from center, but all shots are shown as tens?

3. What would be the result over time for a new shooter who is placed into a group of elite shooters and not exposed to the plethora of other levels of performance? (Already, pretty sure of the result here. The USMC brings Conventional Pistol shooters up to 2600 regularly with this method.)

Oh well, something to think about as I prepare for Camp Perry...

Take Care,
Ed Hall
Air Force Shooting Homepage
Bullseye (and International) Competition Things

Pete S.>
FP: nominal 50 grams, or 0.11 pounds
AP: 500 grams minimum, or about 1.1 pounds
Bullseye 45: 1587 grams or 3.5 pound minimum.

The Army marksmanship manual shows charts with a trigger squeeze of increasing pressure for five seconds until the weapon fires. And the manual discusses taking up slack, and initial pressure.

I dare say that on my Morini 84e, that initial pressure would cause the weapon to fire! <

Pete,

I earlier referenced the Hans Standl book, and today I took it out to check my memory. The book is defintely written with a slant towards heavier disciplines. However in a short mention of FP, he says that "most" FP shooters have their triggers set heavy enough to allow a normal finger contact without going off, so there is an initial pressure, however minimal.

He then goes on to say that expert FP shooters are aiming from five to fifteen seconds, but there is no way you can steadily increase pressure over that sort of time frame with such a light trigger.

Looking for clues in other sections, it is obvioius that Mister Standl favors a fairly quick release. The Army manual lays down as a rule that the firing sequence, beyond the initial pressure phase, must not proceed until the gun is as steady as it is going to get. You see this in the chart where the gun is steady from the five second point until it starts to break up.
Standl uses almost the same graph, but he asks that the pressure be increased before the gun is settled. He makes the point that a shot fired prematurely in the three to five second zone will still normally hit the ten. And he uses this fact to encourage us to increase the squeeze early.

This seems great to me, because I am at a stage where it is a recipe for disaster to watch the sights, asking myself whether i am at maximum steady and further whether I still have time to squeeze before the break up comes. It is much more effective to just start squeezing as soon as I see the sight picture in the zone and simply have faith that it will still be there when the shot breaks.

But I have a one kilo plus trigger (sport pistol), so there is still significant steady time before detonation.

It is hard to see how such a method could be fully applicable to FP, unless perhaps from a psychological point of view.

Actually, this is my reason for abstaining from FP, as I am trying to master a steady squeeze starting from a really positive lean on the trigger even before I get the sights in line. For me, looking at a steady sight picture is like being in a nightmare, trying to act with muxcles turned to rubber. Maybe one day I will have that kind of zen mastery, but for now, I am more comfortable with a grosser technique based upon a grosser trigger weight.

Gordon

Hi Gordon,

For the FP, you might try substituting distance for weight. If you increase the travel to break, you can use the feeling of movement to offset the lightness of the trigger. You must be careful not to stage the trigger, but if you can make it a determined movement from start to fire, the travel may be able to replace the weight.


Take Care,
Ed Hall
Air Force Shooting Homepage
Bullseye (and International) Competition Things

Ed,

that is a very sensible suggesion. Thank-you.

gordon

Note for Jack S Col Miller was a really fine shot. I remember he was working on a variation of the fencing foot positition the last time I shot against him. [the trail foot was parallel to the firing line and the forward foot was placed perpendicular to it] This was not one of the things I attempted. He was also a fine person , Frindly and helpful to all. I liked him. Are you sure that the lower level of shooting performance might not be related to the fact that you have gotten away from the technique he taught ? It was based on fundamental principles of minimizing the arc of movement , acceptance of that movement you could not control, appling steadily increasing pressure until the pistol fired , And working like the devil to perfect sight before the gun went off. No mum-bo jumbo about having the shot fire itself as the pistol swung toward the middle of the aiming area, You just set up a situation where the pistol fired during it best stillness while you focused both vision and attention on sight allignment. Good Shooting Bill Horton

2650 Plus wrote:Note for Jack S Col Miller was a really fine shot. I remember he was working on a variation of the fencing foot positition the last time I shot against him. [the trail foot was parallel to the firing line and the forward foot was placed perpendicular to it] This was not one of the things I attempted. He was also a fine person , Frindly and helpful to all. I liked him. Are you sure that the lower level of shooting performance might not be related to the fact that you have gotten away from the technique he taught ? It was based on fundamental principles of minimizing the arc of movement , acceptance of that movement you could not control, appling steadily increasing pressure until the pistol fired , And working like the devil to perfect sight before the gun went off. No mum-bo jumbo about having the shot fire itself as the pistol swung toward the middle of the aiming area, You just set up a situation where the pistol fired during it best stillness while you focused both vision and attention on sight allignment. Good Shooting Bill Horton

Bill
Indeed I still do the fencing foot position with a fairly wide stance. I feel like I am projecting myself and the gun towards the target. Col Miller had me do that from the beginning. His teachings plus recent things I read from Brian Zins, and Jake Shevlin (via Fred M.) are the most helpful to me these days. A little bit here, a little bit there, maybe soon I will put a good shot package together. Working still at 58, will be 59 this month, doesn't allow enough time to shoot.

Happy birthday to you too this month.

Col Miller was a veteran of WWII and at least on through the French Indo-China days. Oh the stories he told... "There was this shooter named Benner..."

LtCol Arnold (Red) Miller is now at Arlington.

Salute.

2650 Plus wrote:Note for Jack S Col Miller was a really fine shot. I remember he was working on a variation of the fencing foot positition the last time I shot against him. [the trail foot was parallel to the firing line and the forward foot was placed perpendicular to it] This was not one of the things I attempted. He was also a fine person , Frindly and helpful to all. I liked him. Are you sure that the lower level of shooting performance might not be related to the fact that you have gotten away from the technique he taught ? It was based on fundamental principles of minimizing the arc of movement , acceptance of that movement you could not control, appling steadily increasing pressure until the pistol fired , And working like the devil to perfect sight before the gun went off. No mum-bo jumbo about having the shot fire itself as the pistol swung toward the middle of the aiming area, You just set up a situation where the pistol fired during it best stillness while you focused both vision and attention on sight allignment. Good Shooting Bill Horton

As you say about the fundamentals as taught by Col Miller, K.I.S.S. was the main operating system. Sight alignment and trigger control were the main concepts, but saying just that was a little too simple. From Col Millers teachings I have come to believe that the sight alignment, stability, and trigger operation are the products of a good blend of techniques. Or behaviours as Col Swartz writes.

Back to the initial bidding.

Consider my recent experiment at the USASNC last week.

What I am trying to do is focus my training efforts on the specific behaviors (skills seems to be a better word for some readers) needed for reliable, consistent, and consistently improving overall performance.

In order to do this, a few things must happen:

1) Those specific behaviors ("skills") need to be identified and defined explicitly
2) We must find a way to measure performance against the desired outcomes vis a vis the behaviors
3) We must identify sets of drills/training activities that will directly improve performance on each behavior

Finally, we must then EXECUTE . . . continually monitor performance and train for improvement against those behavioral elements.

Does this make sense? Is this worth pursuing?

The end result will be A RATIONAL METHOD FOR OPTIMIZING PERFORMANCE AS A RESULT OF TRAINING EFFORT.

Anyone interested in helping to develop the system?

I can ramble too

My 1) Identify the gun, sight, human condition that give the desired result.
My 2) Find the simplest, smallest, most efficient set of "behaviours" that create that condition.
My 3) Determine the common denominator in that set of behaviours that the mental signal can direct.

Behaviour (technique) >>> Condition >>> Results

You can't directly measure a condition.

Results can be the perfect condition being observed or the resultant holes on target.

If observed or "measured" results are not satisfactory, change the condition.

JackH:

I read your contribution earlier and have been thinking about it today. A clarification question if you don't mind (I adhere tot eh philosophy of valuing clarity over agreement FWIW):

All we can do is interact with our immediate environment (the gun). What value do you see, from a practical standpoint, with adding the intermediate step "condition?" What do you mean by "condition?"

At this point I think I agree with "condition" as an intermediate step- I just want to know how I can use that presumption to shoot better.

Also- while I may partially agree that a "condition" might not be easily directly measurable (hmmm . . . what does a Rika/Scatt/Noptel measure directly? A condition, perhaps. What do you see with your own senses? he intermediate "condition.") all of that really depends on your definition of "condition."

Systems modelers would refer to what you call "condition" perhaps as "state space?"

JackH

How well does that fencer's stance work for you? I am fairly new to air pistol, but fenced competitively from 1975 until 1989, as well as coaching and teaching for many of those years. A fencer's stance would be second nature for me, although I'd probably struggle not to keep the back hand elevated as in foil and epee.

By the way, there are (at least) two fencer's stances ... classic and athletic. The former is as you describe above, with feet at right angles, the front pointing to the target and the back perpendicular. The more athletic stance has the back foot pointing slightly forward of perpendicular to the target line.

1) Things you do and can control (process with flow, not individual steps at a time):
Hold techniques
Trigger operation (technique with a lot of overlap with hold)
Eye on sight monitor
Mental input (hopefully one singular mental signal)

2) To create and maintain - consistent conditions of alignment, stability, in time and place (classically referred to as sight alignment, minimum arc of movement, surprise shot, aim area)

3) That result in - Tight groups, and center shots (with a dependence on gun, zero, ammo factors)





I suppose if you designed equations for the movements, time and location of the "things you do" with the gun in hand, you would seek the solutions where they approach zero. In a way I believe the Rica type machines would show you the closeness to zero of movement, time and place of the shot release. But can the Rica differentiate between alignment and stability? I will probably never see a Rica in use, so my eye on sight will have to do.

If you try to measure your "things you do" by the score, skipping the conditions, how many variables were involved that canceled each other out, still "resulting" in a 10?

Ramble on...

SeaBlue52 wrote:JackH

How well does that fencer's stance work for you? I am fairly new to air pistol, but fenced competitively from 1975 until 1989, as well as coaching and teaching for many of those years. A fencer's stance would be second nature for me, although I'd probably struggle not to keep the back hand elevated as in foil and epee.

By the way, there are (at least) two fencer's stances ... classic and athletic. The former is as you describe above, with feet at right angles, the front pointing to the target and the back perpendicular. The more athletic stance has the back foot pointing slightly forward of perpendicular to the target line.

I think I do the "athletic" one with a comfortable natural turn of the front foot towards the target but not exactly at the target. My body position is about 45 degrees off the line. But that varies with my position needed for sight alignment. The stance gets a little wider and even lunges a bit if I get real intense for timed and rapid. I have a dance background too and we learned that turning the feet somewhat perpendicular was indeed stable.

I once trained a Division level team in Korea and ,If I have understood Ed's post I used almost the same concept. Any time a shooter shot a ten or ten tens I made a big to do about it. I would say such things as Blankenship cant shoot any better than that, and bring the other shooters over to see the good target. I never made any response to a less than perfect target. Unfortunatly I was not smart enough to apply the consept to myself until just befort the all army matches that year. It worked so well that I trained with the proceedure for the next couple of weeks and broke 2650 two weeks later. Please read Ed's post again just in case the message didn't get through. Its located several posts above this one. Good Shooting Bill Horton