TargetTalk

I thought I'd start this new thread, although it is a continuation of others. This will allow for a new title in the forum. I chose to post this in the Pistol forum because that's what I'm shooting.

I seem to already be mentally losing some of the details from yesterday's matches, even though I studied them in great depth throughout the day and during the three+ hour drive back home. That's why we have notebooks, yes? I'm not expecting this to be a long post, but we'll see how involved I get...

Basically, I'll describe what didn't work as I perceived it, what worked from my point of view and a variation on something described in other threads.

More background is probably better brought up first. Yesterday's matches were Conventional (Bullseye) matches which would equate to Standard Pistol, with Slow, Timed and Rapid stages and various calibers from .22 up through .45 caliber Service Pistol (fully loaded 230 grain FMJ and open sights). All the Slow Fire was at 50 yards, while all the rest was at 25 yards. Dots and open sights were used depending on the gun. For the descriptions below, there did not appear to be a difference in results between the guns with different sights. IOW, what worked using the dot, worked with the open sights as well. Obviously, the sight picture and focus was different between the two sighting systems.

Approaches that Didn't Work:

I normally wouldn't dwell, write down or study in any way (or promote studying) what didn't work, but these approaches are commonly in use with success and I've had success with them in the past. I am convinced, at this point, that my present belief structure no longer allows this approach to succeed for me.

The first thing that didn't work, was to settle into the area of aim and then turn over the firing. When I did this, my hold immediately opened up and the shot was wide when it occurred, which seemed rather delayed.

The second thing that didn't work, was to start the trigger and then hesitate in any way before the release occurred.

Oddly, both of the above methods have worked for me in the past.

Approach(es) that Did Work:

This started as a single approach, but seemed to modify itself during the day, which is why I added the (es) above. It is quite possible the basic approach worked for me because I now believe in it. I do find it interesting that it modified itself during the day. Did I shoot all tens? No, but I did shoot a lot of them. (I know for a fact that not all the tens were shot with the current technique, but the overall impression was that the approach I'm describing had a higher success rate.) I also shot some extremely wide shots on at least one target, but if I look back I specifically remember one of them telling me it wasn't going to print well - three times! Something was wrong which I couldn't discard. Was there something in my techique, something in the air, did my subconscious know it was a bad bullet, did it just "know" the shot would be wide, period? Premonition, fate? After three complete tries, I finally fired it and accepted the eight. I put two more shots somewhat near it during the ten. All others on that target were solid tens - with a gun I've been struggling with for Slow Fire over the last couple years - my Service Pistol in .45 caliber. Seven of them within the ten ring! Sorry, I wanted to highlight that...

The approach I'm now addressing is to start the trigger above the settle and complete it as the final part of the settle comes into recognition, without any hesitation (stopping along the way) to wait for the minimum settle. How well did this work? I think I shot 22/30 Slow Fire tens with the .45 (non-Service Pistol) in one of the matches. A lot of the shots fired when I wouldn't have let them due to what the sight picture was, but when checked they were solid tens. Those shots that didn't quite make the ten ring seemed to be the ones that manifested some form of adjustment or hesitation, even though several looked "perfect."

Now for the modification - it seemed that somewhere along the way, the trigger was suddenly adjusted to accelerate at the end instead of being a constant increase, as though a car is traveling at 30 mph and the accelerator is slammed to the floor. There was a distinct difference between a trigger that has been pre-loaded with most of the weight and then finalized, and what I was experiencing. There was no stop along the way before full-throttle. I did experience some of those and they were invariably wide, especially during sustained fire. In fact, several times I caught the hesitation and when I tried to continue, the sights would wave back and forth, like the gun was saying, "No! You screwed it up! Don't fire!" But in sustained fire you don't have a lot of room for total restarts.<smile>

I obviously need to put in more research on this, since they weren't all tens. Can I bring in the wide ones? Of course, I hope so. Will this be the cure-all for low scores? I doubt it will make the rings outside the ten obsolete on our targets, but I hope it will help in some areas.

This did run on for a bit, but I hope it isn't too long and you made it through to this point.

As always, all comments welcome...

Take Care,
Ed Hall
http://www.airforceshooting.org/
http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/

Ed
Once again you are right on IMO. Not that I am an expert. (Well, I am an Expert class. But that comes from not enough time, matches, conditioning, and too much dinking with different guns for years.)

Your starting the trigger before the final small percent of settle is to me much like my interpretation of Zins. I dropped the thought of "steering". I presently like "bring it all together in the center". i.e. the process involving holding, seeing, aligning, and triggering.

Question: How close and where are your sights at the last part of your pre-settle?

All in all it sounds like this is like my old coaches words that sighting and triggering are like two arrows flying at the target at the same time. It has taken me years to really get that. Lt Col Miller added that in SF your mind is a little more on the sighting arrow. In T&R, more on the trigger arrow. That was 30+years ago. Today with so easy to pull triggers, I think the sighting arrow is equally important eitherway. Granted we can screw up a shot quicker with the trigger than anything else. Maybe even that needs some words behind it:

When you do screw up the trigger, do you say "OOPS, I screwed up the trigger? Or do you go beyond and ask why and where the process broke causing a trigger screw up?

Hi Jack,

jackh wrote:Question: How close and where are your sights at the last part of your pre-settle?

I can't bring myself to put pressure on the trigger above the target - probably better that way anyway. But, I find that the time I take to go from bringing the gun up, to settling into the black isn't very long, although with open sights my aiming area is sub six. So, I try to start the trigger when I'm in the area of white above the bull. The sights are aligned or at least close. I might even be putting a stop in my settling at that area of the target to initiate the trigger before the final settle, but I'm not sure. How quickly these details fade. (Why isn't that in the notebook?)<smile>

jackh wrote:When you do screw up the trigger, do you say "OOPS, I screwed up the trigger? Or do you go beyond and ask why and where the process broke causing a trigger screw up?

I try to stay away from any technical study of anything I don't want to repeat. I don't think I even suggest that I screwed it up. I might think that the results aren't what I desire, and continue on. I think I focus more on performing the way I would prefer. If I notice I had some aberration in my delivery, I try to focus on the correct delivery next time. I think I might add a "Hold Center" thought if I notice I moved out as the previous one fired.

I like your two arrows coming together and it brings to mind some of the times I see the bullet and the shadow meet in the bull during Team Matches, on a bright sunny day. If you set up just right with a scope behind a .45 shooter, when the sun is to the side and behind, you can catch a glimse of the shadow coming in from the opposite side and meeting the glint of the bullet at the bull - a really neat spectacle.

Take Care,
Ed Hall
http://www.airforceshooting.org/
http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/

Ed,

As always, you've posted some very interesting observations. I have to agree with these observations entirely as they seem to be what works best for me. If I insert any kind of conscious delay while waiting for movement to be reduced, I can almost guarantee myself a flier. As a result I've settled on pretty much the same technique as you describe. Start above the bull and settle down into it, with trigger pressure increasing as soon as the front sight comes into the black. By the time the pistol has come down to the right point on the target the shot is just about ready to fire. In this manner I get far more "suprise" shots where the gun goes off without any conscious input, and far more solid 10's. Waiting for my hold to settle has proven to be highly counterproductive, as has following a step-by-step process which calls for sight alignment, then stable hold, then apply pressure on the trigger. The key to your technique is holding the sights in alignment as you come down through the bull. If you can achieve this you'll have more 10's than you can count.

Ed Hall wrote: The approach I'm now addressing is to start the trigger above the settle and complete it as the final part of the settle comes into recognition, without any hesitation (stopping along the way) to wait for the minimum settle.

Isn't this, more or less, the technique used by some free pistol shooter?
Harald Vollmar, for example, in the '70s used it (mainly because as long as the arm and the hand and the pistol are moving they do not shake or tremble).
Regards, s.

Hey scerir - I'd be interested in your sources. Vollmar was national coach (for a short time) here in Switzerland in the early 90s and tried to teach a very aggressive shoot-while-still-slowly-moving technique, without much success. Interestingly, I met some german shooters in '94 or '95 who told me that he himself had never actually used that technique, but a more conventional one. I can't say who is right or wrong, but the germans seem to be nearer the source...

Tycho wrote: Hey scerir - I'd be interested in your sources. [...] I met some german shooters in '94 or '95 who told me that he himself had never actually used that technique, but a more conventional one. [...]

Not sure but ... did Skanaker write, in his book, about Vollmar, the Olympics triple-medalist? He also explained that technique, as far as I can remember. There are also photos, about Vollmar, in that book.

About the German shooters ... it seems very strange what they said. Because one of them, one of the very best, a very tall man, unfortunately I do not rmember his name now (something like 'Eder' perhaps?), used exactly the same Vollmar technique with his Toz (but not with his Steyr FP 'prototype'). I saw him in Milano (Milan) during a competition, and ... well ... that shooting 'on the move' was very very impressive (and fast!).

Regards,
s.

Not sure but ... did Skanaker write, in his book, about Vollmar, the Olympics triple-medalist?

There is a section in Dr Antals Competative Pistol Shooting about some Olympic medalist doing this...book isn't handy...not sure who it was. But I do recall that under intense match pressure, even they briefly paused before the release. I think the quote was under match pressure the trigger control was not perfect

Timing is everything with Ed's technique. If you really do "start the trigger" and linearly increase the pressure you must have "faith" (the russian coaches call it courage!) that you will have refined the hold and alignment enough when the shot breaks.

There is a similar faith in the idea of watching the front sight and "ignoring" the target. Which is higher importance?

Ed,
I would suggest the reasons for the good bits may just be heightened concentration on the process because you were doing something different and had to think about it more. I would also suggest that during a match is perhaps not the best time to try different things - but we've all been there done that.

I think your last bit is the most pertinent bit. You need to practice one technique and learn it fully before you can really see if makes any difference.

Rob.

Hi Tycho - maybe I can help a little. There is a book written in german by Heinz Joseph who was the coach of Harald Vollmar and Uwe Potteck at their peak time. Therein he writes about an automatism or reflex that Vollmar developed due to a lot of training. The reflex was so that as soon as he came into the aiming area and realized the correct sight picture the shot went off. According do Joseph he had lost control of this process completely which means even if he tried he couldn't do a thing about it. Sights in the aiming area - bang. The observation of his coach was that there were a lot of good shots but then suddenly a 8 or worse a 7. In his words "sechsmal die Zehn getroffen und doch nur eine 95". Which means it was not stable, even under training conditions. And so they changed it which according to Joseph took 3 months of hard work. If I remember correctly he pointed out that anything under 3 seconds in the aiming area is to short.

Regards,
Ro

Thanks for all the replies, everyone,

Mark Briggs wrote:The key to your technique is holding the sights in alignment as you come down through the bull. If you can achieve this you'll have more 10's than you can count.

I think the subconscious can take care of that, as well, if we can effectively let it know our desires. I find that in sustained fire, I sometimes have no conscious recollection of maintaining sight alignment, and am pleased to find a perfect target when it's over.


I hope readers aren't getting confused about what I'm describing with turning the shot over to the subconscious to complete on its own, as I settle into my aiming area. Sure, one can shoot as they sweep across the bull from any direction, but I'm not advocating that at all. (At least not yet!) I am describing the idea of starting the trigger prior to reaching the aiming area and letting the subconscious provide the finishing touches. The settle I'm referring to is the same one you would use for the settle-hold-trigger method. It just becomes trigger-settle-hold.

CROB wrote:Timing is everything with Ed's technique. If you really do "start the trigger" and linearly increase the pressure you must have "faith" (the russian coaches call it courage!) that you will have refined the hold and alignment enough when the shot breaks.

Although quite true, because there will be hesitation if you aren't confident, the key is really just being convinced that the shot won't happen early. This may be a tough leap for some, because they want to be consciously able to verify the hold, but that verification comes after the fact, which is too late. I would also like to comment again on the "linear increase" mentioned in the quote. That was my initial intention, but it was modified at some point by my subconscious, in that the shot was made earlier than expected by a "parabolic increase" near the end. This was consciously unintended, but did occur regularly, later in the match.

RobStubbs wrote:I think your last bit is the most pertinent bit. You need to practice one technique and learn it fully before you can really see if makes any difference.

Actually Rob, I was trying to use the current technique, but falling back on the old. Those observations were made when I would notice that my shots weren't working and I would realize that I had fallen back to older training. I hope to improve the ratio of new technique over the next few months...

Ro wrote:If I remember correctly he pointed out that anything under 3 seconds in the aiming area is to short.

Well this pretty much disproves all my theories right there, and it is in writing. This tells me I should follow this routine: align the sights - place them in the center - count to three - fire! Is that really what the author is recommending? Sounds counterintuitive, but then so much of shooting is counterintuitive...

As always, all comments are welcome.

Take Care,
Ed Hall
http://www.airforceshooting.org/
http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/

Ed, I have to apologize for the short version I put online and you are correct in that it sounds that simple. But I'm afraid it isn't. The book of Mr. Joseph is quite technical and is in many respect very detailed but IMHO leaves out a lot too. The sentence I cited was in a section about automatization (don't know if I got the right word here). He is of the opinion that it's a good and even desired thing but only to a certain point. And this point is what he calls "fine aiming" (Feinvisierung) which occurs in the aiming area. And it was at this point that Vollmar had his problems (in Free Pistol). His triggerpull was so automatic that he had no control over his fine aiming anymore. But according to Joseph there are fine or minor corrections which are necessary when you are already in your aiming area. And this corrections need time.
It is worth mentoning that the shotprocess he describes arrives in the aiming area with aligned sights. And the duration of the whole process in the aiming area is according to his book 3.0 - 6.0 seconds at the most. Vollmar was constantly at 3.5 seconds.
By the way I don't think that you are wrong with what you are doing. I have heard coaches saying the exact same thing and they know what they are talking about. If you have any questions about Joseph's book feel free to ask.

Best regards,
Ro

Ed:

I've been "studying on this" topic for a few more days now and have the following observations/questions/issues FWIW:

- Yeah, we are still wrestling with the language here. You are certainly not the only one here who is (apparently) misunderstood when trying to explain this stuff!

- I stand by my assertions that different people can experience the same exact phenomenon and explain it so differently that they think they are seeing different things (important note: I specifically did NOT claim that Brian Zins was misperceiving what he was experiencing. Sheesh. The point was that Brian, Ed, you, me, anyone could all be experiencing the same exact phenomenon . . . and still think we were doing/seeing it totally differently from anyone else.)

therefore

- I think- honestly, sincerely, and humbly- that we have a lot more common ground in reality than our tortured explanifications would make it seem.

however

- The differences seem to be in the precise timing of "actions/events" in the terminal phase of the shot process (release -300 ms +50 ms) and the timing in the approach phase of the shot process (pre-settle through terminal phase). Specifically:

-- When or even if "settle" occurs prior to the terminal phase. We may have a problem here with the definition of "settle" actually.

-- How to define the nature of "shot release" with respect to trigger pressure; I know you did (as have I) some research into trigger pressure/shot release profiles. We have discussed this with respect to trigger pressure curve profile, duration, etc. and that is an important issue: I think we *all* start the pressure curve prior to "settle;" but when exactly does the "irrevocable" part of the curve begin? When in hte process does the trigger "commitment" (uninterrupted constant pressure increase) start?

-- What is the role of trigger pressure/commitment with respect to fine tuning alignment? If we use trigger pressure as an element in fine tuning alignment (as is common in bullseye for several reasons), does that mean- or at least it that perceived as- using the trigger to "steer" the sights? Does commitment to trigger pressure mean our subconscious can then turn more attention/CPU time over to alignment?

Anyhow, I have several additional similar thoughts but I'm trying to keep my word count per post down.

Final thought though: by observation, the top shooters all *seem* to take a couple of seconds minimum between when gross movement of the muzzle stops and the shot is released. Even Brian Zins.

Have you thought about video taping the movement of your muzzle against an indexed background during your approaches? It might be a very interesting experiment for you to compare the tapes from the two methods under consideration; settle-trigger vs. trigger-settle. We think that there would be a noticeable difference. Now I'm not so sure. For the experiment to really be properly instrumented though, we should have synchronized FTVS video also. The difference may not show up in external video, but the FTVS may show a difference . . . ?

Steve Swartz

Have you thought about video taping the movement of your muzzle against an indexed background during your approaches?...

I have only used a Noptel a couple of times, so excuse me if I'm off track, but couldn't one of the training systems (Rika, Scatt, Noptel, Rohm, etc) tell you what you were doing, expecially if it had a trigger pressure sensor? I'm sure I read something about at least one of these having a pressure sensor option.

Of course this will tell you what you are actually doing, not what you are trying to do....

Really interesting post, Steve. Raises many of the issues I have also thought about as I have experimented with this technique.

Ed - you mention that you had no difficulty in applying this technique to your iron sighted and red dot BE guns. Did you notice any difference between the (nominal) 2 lb trigger on your 22 and the 3.5 lb trigger of the 45?
I spent several days with my AP, with some success. Today, I spent the day with my 22 and my 45. The 4 lb rolling trigger on my 45 was very frustrating. Even with my mind in the right place, I doubt whether, using this technique, I can easily shift from AP/FP to 45/BE in the same shooting season. I welcome your comments.

Fred

Sorry for the delay in responding to some of the questions. I've been sidetracked by several issues, and time has seemed to race by.

Mark Briggs wrote:If I insert any kind of conscious delay while waiting for movement to be reduced, I can almost guarantee myself a flier. As a result I've settled on pretty much the same technique as you describe. Start above the bull and settle down into it, with trigger pressure increasing as soon as the front sight comes into the black.

I like this and believe so much in it, I included something similar when I wrote up a "2006 New Year's Training Exercise" that I posted to the Bullseye List last New Year's Eve. For those interested, the exercise can be found at:

http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/ny2006exercise.html

I had several reports from List members telling me it worked well for them. I would now suggest a change in the speed of the trigger for the International slow fire type events, to include adding in the allowance for the "fine tuning" suggested.

As an aside, I would also suggest that proper visualization be included in this training and especially at matches. I recently fired seven shots around the ten ring, questioning why they weren't centered - all seemed good. Pausing to regroup, I realized I hadn't told my subconscious I wanted tens - I was just shooting at the bull. I visualized tens and fired three. To add a little humor, in the same league session, as I prepared to fire a Timed Fire target I thought, "I want all X's!" Almost immediately, I changed that to, "A smiley face would be neat." You can be the judge. I have a more detailed telling and a picture at:

http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/smileystory.html

Back to the topic, for me, I have to start the trigger well before I touch black. My current process has been including a settled pause in the upper portion of the target, where I complete an exhale, started at my initial lowering. To be more descriptive:

- I inhale as I bring the gun up above the target card***

- I exhale as I lower it onto the area above the bull

- I hold for an inhale

- I start the trigger and exhale as I settle into the aiming area (this is the bull itself for dots, and through the bull to a sub-six area for irons)

*** I've been concerned with how high I raise the gun, since I've seen there is a limit in International competition as to how high you can go above the target. This may well be a challenge for me, since I'm already the tallest bullseye shooter I know and have trouble with some ranges' eyebrows above the firing points (I've hit some). So far there was only one BE range I've been on that required shooters to limit their vertical motion to be within the berm.


Ro,

Thanks for your input and offer. I hope I didn't sound too sarcastic. The "fine aiming" is a potential tripping point, especially for newer shooters. Your point on the consistent 3.5 seconds of elapsed time is also key. I firmly believe that if you can perfect your trigger to take an exact length of time to complete, the subconscious can make coincidence with the aiming occur where you want it. I would venture that for Vollmar, he had reached that level where his subconscious knew when to have the sighting finalized.

Part of my suggested training routines lean heavily on creating a trigger operation that is the same for various methods of dry firing and live firing. I firmly believe this can lead to better scores than trying to adjust the speed of the trigger based on what you see.

Ro wrote:By the way I don't think that you are wrong with what you are doing. I have heard coaches saying the exact same thing and they know what they are talking about.

Thanks. One of the coaches that appears to have this same belief is Anatoliy Piddubnyy, who wrote:

Third, when lowering the pistol to the Shooting zone, start the movement of the index finger, without interrupting it until you release the shot, and then a little more.

in his article The Vital Problems of Pistol Shooting which can be found at:

http://www.pilkguns.com/anatoli.shtml


Steve Swartz,

Indeed, we may very well be experiencing the same and reporting differently. Look at how several witnesses to the same crime, report such varied descriptions...

Steve Swartz wrote:I think we *all* start the pressure curve prior to "settle;" but when exactly does the "irrevocable" part of the curve begin? When in hte process does the trigger "commitment" (uninterrupted constant pressure increase) start?

I believe the best results occur if the "start" is prior to the final settle, the constant increase in trigger pressure is not interrupted, and the length of time for completion takes into account the fine tuning of the settle. Further, the duration of the trigger operation must be a constant the subconscious can rely on with 100% confidence.

Steve Swartz further wrote:If we use trigger pressure as an element in fine tuning alignment (as is common in bullseye for several reasons), does that mean- or at least it that perceived as- using the trigger to "steer" the sights? Does commitment to trigger pressure mean our subconscious can then turn more attention/CPU time over to alignment?

I believe that the wording of "trigger steering the sights" is a poor choice of description. In the overall performance of the shot, the trigger may induce movement visible within the sighting. Optimum is for this movement to finalize the perfect picture. If this movement is degrading to the picture and is countermanded by the wrist in an attempt to "fix" the picture, trouble results. If, OTOH, this induced movement is directed back to the aiming area, on the fly, by the offending element (the trigger), without altering the time constant we've established for the trigger operation, all will be well. I don't really think this is steering, but it can take on that appearance in descriptions.

Steve Swartz also wrote:Final thought though: by observation, the top shooters all *seem* to take a couple of seconds minimum between when gross movement of the muzzle stops and the shot is released. Even Brian Zins.

The question becomes whether the trigger pressure is increasing during those seconds or not. It is so difficult to tell what is going on within the Champion's routine without first-hand experience. One of my newer shooters on the AF Team once made the comment on how fast Col Chang pulled the trigger when he got back on target during sustained fire. What I attempted to convey was that the appearance was based on his idea that the trigger wasn't started until the return. In fact, Col Chang was starting the trigger during recoil and completing it upon return. I would suggest that GySgt Zins and other top shooters, are increasing the pressure smoothly during those seconds. But, I can really only rely on my own experience to review and I'm not quite to their level yet...


CROB,

The Rika does indeed have a trigger sensor. I'm not aware of the others including this device, but they may well be so equipped. In my limited experience using the Rika sensor (if my memory serves me - an ever increasingly relevant concern), it didn't seem to track two-stage triggers well. I think it had something to do with the calibration.

Bill Blankenship once wrote in an article, I think in The Pistol Shooters' Treasury, about using a gauge of some design to measure his trigger pressure and perfect the gradually increasing pattern. I have also tried some various (cheap) methods to obtain the same testing. This type of instrument might be of interest to shooters worldwide. I think many shooters might be surprised to see what their trigger operation truly looks like from the perspective of constantly increasing pressure.

Fred Mannis wrote:Ed - you mention that you had no difficulty in applying this technique to your iron sighted and red dot BE guns. Did you notice any difference between the (nominal) 2 lb trigger on your 22 and the 3.5 lb trigger of the 45?

I notice less of a difference if I start the trigger ahead of time, than if I wait for settle before starting the operation. Yes, I can tell that the pressure is more, but by starting early and continuing through, it doesn't seem to be that much more. If I wait for settle, the pressure seems quite great sometimes, but I think it is caused more by my hesitation in looking for a better picture.

Additionally, Fred Mannis wrote:I spent several days with my AP, with some success. Today, I spent the day with my 22 and my 45. The 4 lb rolling trigger on my 45 was very frustrating. Even with my mind in the right place, I doubt whether, using this technique, I can easily shift from AP/FP to 45/BE in the same shooting season.

I had a similar reservation with swapping between pistols with entirely different rake angles when I started shooting, but found that within a short period my subconscious immediately "knew" which pistol I had in my hand, and when I brought either gun up on target, the sights were aligned. I think through training with both guns, you will become comfortable with both and the necessary familiarity will be achieved. I further believe that a constantly increasing pressure will work better in the longer term, than staging. With the heavier trigger, you just stick with it more until it fires. This really comes down to follow through. If you are expecting the shot to be over at X pressure, you will have trouble if you need XX pressure to fire. Be patient and stick with the shot until after it's down range.

Take Care,
Ed Hall
http://www.airforceshooting.org/
http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/

Why do we say and do a "settle" to the target from above? Also why do we exhale into the target?

What if we inhaled to a comfortable level and simultaneously raised to the aim area from slightly below? When we get there the trigger would be 90% or more pulled as well. The inhalation, sighting and triggering would all come together at the center. All that occurs before would be priliminary or preparation. Even the preliminary breath to be exhaled at just the right point prior would be considered preparation.

Seems to me if we hold our breath or exhale while finalizing the shot, something is going backwards. Like breathing. And lowering is taking away from support as opposed to adding support to the gun with a raise.

This shot process would key off of breathing in.

Any takers?

Jack

Can we agree that at some point, trigger pressure is applied smoothly and consistently through the release of the shot?

Can we not also agree that the point at which that "terminal pressure application" (the point in time when the last, final, irrevocable ramp up of pressure is initiated) may occur at any given level of pressure for each individual?

In other words, I may "hold" at first stage plus X grams, and Ed Hall may "hold" at first stage plus Y grams immediately preceding the final, irrevocable application of smooth, steady, positive increase to break?

I may hold at first stage plus one gram- and get to that point before bringing the sights intot he aiming area- then maintain this "prefinal" pressure for a second or two before applying smooth, steady increase (over teh space of say 50 ms) to release.

Ed may take up the first stage above the aiming area, then ramp up to first stage plus all but 5 grams from break while moving into the aiming area, then break those last 5 grams within the aiming area in a 10 ms terminal application.

In both cases the time from aligning with aim at the top of the target to the release of the shot into a deep ten may take exactly the same amount of total time. The pressure profile, however, with respect to both Time and Aimpoint would be the difference.

I would see a distinct Settle-Break pattern, and Ed would see a distinct Pressure-Break (with no settle) pattern. He would also perceive that the increased application of pressure beyond the first stage induced a "settling" or "fine aiming" effect.

Possible?

Steve Swartz

The question I see is this one. Can one explain how to make 55 tens and only 5 nines (during a P10 competition)? I'm inclined to think there is some other technique. That is to say, there might be some other way to subconsciously process informations coming from the 'eye' and from the 'finger'. A more *logical* and efficient processing, because it does *not* allow any shot below 'nine'.
s.

scerir wrote:The question I see is this one. Can one explain how to make 55 tens and only 5 nines (during a P10 competition)? I'm inclined to think there is some other technique. That is to say, there might be some other way to subconsciously process informations coming from the 'eye' and from the 'finger'. A more *logical* and efficient processing, because it does *not* allow any shot below 'nine'.
s.

You do not shoot 55 tens and 5 nines. Shooting is a one shot process that is repeated. The 'art' is to a) shoot tens and b) to repeat.

If there is some magic formula to not allow shots below nines then I've never seen it. No one has shot a perfect 600 that I'm aware of so they haven't found it either.

Rob.