TargetTalk

Here is another newbie question for you. Where on the net can I get descriptions or photos of the proper standing position for 10M air pistol.

Any help would again be appreciated!

You could look at some of the images Scott Pilkington has shot and posted here or try the ISSF website. I would suggest the images be used just for reference since each person has a unique stance based on his/her body type.

As Greg says there is no 'proper' stance. There will be one that suits you and a mixture of stances favoured by different nations - again look at the ISSF website or u-tube. Once of the first things to do is to find out where your natural point of aim is and that then dictates your stance. You can later on retrain a position but to start with that's what you should use.

Rob.

I have been trying to learn 10M AP and FP shooting. I just purchased a copy of the Advanced Pistol Marksmanship Manual published by the U.S. Army Marksmanship Training Unit. I have only read through the first part on stance and balance and so far and that has been a tremendous help:

http://tinyurl.com/6888a2x

There are a number of on-line discussions and presentations about "natural point of aim" and one champion marksman and coach who claims that he does not understand what NPA means and thinks it's bunk. I was inclined to feel the same way. I was also having problems with steadiness - I was standing more and more sideways to the target which seemed to help some aspects, but was having trouble controlling a "rocking" motion. I thought it was a matter of being tired and/or out of shape. True enough, but my stance was greatly aggravating the problem. This book helped me understand very quickly what I was doing wrong, why it was wrong and which direction to go to make it better.

If the rest of the book is as useful as the first bit, it will be worth far more than the cover price.

Roger

Good article here that covers the stance amongst other stuff as well:

http://toz35.blogspot.com/2009/08/vital ... -part.html

Cheers

Mark

Don Nygord once told me that there was NO NPA (for pistol shooters).

I have had other top shooters tell me that there WAS.

After seeing the HUGE variations between shooters stances, I'll go with Nygord.

Try here
http://www.pistol.org.au/Coaching/default.php

lots of info for new pistol shooters - I personally stand at about 20-30º to target - but its definitely personal fit

Rover wrote:Don Nygord once told me that there was NO NPA (for pistol shooters).

I have had other top shooters tell me that there WAS.

After seeing the HUGE variations between shooters stances, I'll go with Nygord.

Because everyone has different stances there's no such thing as natural point of aim? How do you arrive at that conclusion from what you stated?

As I said, because of the huge differences. If there were a natural point of aim the stance would be SIMILAR because we're made the same way. Sure there are differences between people, but the basic structure is there.

You might find two very differently constructed individuals and expect their stance to be different. But, when you have two that are very similar you would also expect their stance to be similar, IF there was a NPA.

This is my opinion, having watched others and shooting in competition myself. This stance business can be kind of "trendy" when you observe for awhile. I think most shooters go with that or whatever feels comfortable and call it NPA.

That's why I'll go with Nygord on the subject.

"We can conclude that the model for posture is not fundamental in attaining good results. The important thing is the shooter’s ability to attain good stability in the chosen posture, with optimal muscular tension.", is a quote from the above post...
http://toz35.blogspot.com/2009/08/vital ... -part.html

Perhaps a little obscure, but I thought it relevant.

I think you misunderstand NPA. Its not a Universal Point of Aim which would dictate that everyone shoots in the same position. NPA is an individual characteristic, which basically dictates that everyone's stance will vary. One's own NPA varies over the course of fire as ones muscles tire and are in different stages of tension or relaxation.

Given that even at a World Cup there could be 100 shooters and the vast majority's stance will be within a pretty narrow envelope, there will be a few with drastically different stances from the norm.

I think Nygord's comments were in regard to those that trace their feet and think that standing in that one position is correct.

No, I did not misunderstand.

What I said (I hope) is that, "This stance business can be kind of "trendy" when you observe for awhile. I think most shooters go with that or whatever feels comfortable and call it NPA." I don't think there is much uniformity, which I think there would be because we're similarly constructed.

I have also watched the preferred stance change over my shooting career, with no real change in scores. Yes, I know records have been broken, but not by much.

This is my thinking after Nygord told me about this in a long conversation. It is an opinion. You can take it or leave it, but I hope it stimulates thinking.

Rover wrote:As I said, because of the huge differences. If there were a natural point of aim the stance would be SIMILAR because we're made the same way. Sure there are differences between people, but the basic structure is there.

No we're not.
I mean, ostensibly yes, but people are all different shapes and sizes, some people have been in car accidents, some people have broken their wrists/arms/legs/necks at some point which affects the position they can adopt. Some people have metal plates or artificial joints - we're literally put together differently!
If two outwardly identical shooters have different positions, than it could simply be that one person has an old sports injury that makes some part of their body stiff or reduces mobility - forcing a different position. They would adopt similar positions if their body allowed them to. Or they might have sprained something just that morning and only have a compromised position just for that match (which happened to be the one you saw them at).

Your idea that you can see a person's position by observation alone is fatally flawed. You can't judge internal position by observation. You don't know what their sporting or medical past is. Not without asking them about why they adopt such a position or what contributes to each element of their stance.


I think we're arguing about apples and oranges here.
Many people would understand NPA to be the place your firearm naturally comes to rest when you adopt your shooting position. If that place isn't the proper point on the target, then you need to shuffle your position round rather than trying to force the gun over (in which case you will probably either overshoot the target and it'll land out the far side or the shot will end up somewhere between where you're trying to aim and where the gun wants to point).

NPA is simply where the gun goes when you adopt your position. You then move your position to align the NPA with the target.


Wikipedia defines NPA thus:

Natural point of aim is a shooting skill where the shooter minimizes the effects of body movement on the firearm's impact point. Along with proper stance, sight picture and trigger control, it forms the basis of marksmanship.

To achieve natural point of aim, the shooter settles into position with the eyes closed, opening them after ensuring the position is comfortable and the firearm is resting in the stance with minimal muscle tension. If the sights are not resting on the desired point of impact, the shooter adjusts the position by repeating the same steps until the sights rest on the target.

Natural point of aim is not achieved if the shooter must apply pressure to the firearm so the sight picture is on target. One of the main advantages of natural point of aim is that it minimizes fatigue when shooting a long course of fire. Over time, the shooter learns to assume the correct position quickly, allowing for accurate fire immediately.

It doesn't matter what stance you adopt, as long as it allows you to bring the gun up consistently. Once you've established that consistency you can translate it onto a target.

"Don Nygord once told me that there was NO NPA (for pistol shooters)."

As probably the best/most informed pistol shooter I have personally known, I believed him and gave you the reasons I thought that was so.

Take it or leave it.

Rover wrote:"Don Nygord once told me that there was NO NPA (for pistol shooters)."

As probably the best/most informed pistol shooter I have personally known, I believed him and gave you the reasons I thought that was so.

Take it or leave it.

Well, he's not wrong, but as I say, apples and oranges.

When I set up my position, I can close my eyes, raise my arm, and point on a spot on the wall. I can then lower my arm, raise it again, and it will be pointing in the same place (or as near as makes no difference - mid to minor corrections - I'm not pointing at the ceiling or 3 targets down).

That's my Natural Point of Aim - where my arm naturally goes when I lift it "straight up".

If I've set up right, that spot on the wall will happen to be the middle of the target.
That's what 99% of shooters would understand by NPA.

Don Nygord - being as good as he was - may have had a different or more refined idea of what NPA is. For the rest of us, Wikipedia's definition is spot on, and according to that definition, NPA does exist.

I would assume that Nygord said it doesn't exist because it changes over time, with age, with injuries, with fatigue. That doesn't mean your body doesn't have an NPA though. It just means if that NPA moves because you're fatiguing part way through a long match, then you need to reassess your position.

quoting from my other post:
"NPA is my term for Natural Position of Alignment. i.e. the gunsight relation to the eye. The shooter must have a "feel" for the correct balance of this position to not be forcing the gun into this eye alignment. Warming and stretching does help."

The concept NPA usually is meant to apply to arm angle. Well it is incomplete to try to point at the target without any discussion on natural sight alignment to the eye. Move your dang feet once you establish yourself and the gunsights aligned position right here on the firing line and no place else.

Good Grief!, I'ts obvious, ...There is an NPA, but it is a position for each
individual shooter. As many shooters that exist, there is a unique NPA
for each one. if there are 2 million shooters, there are 2 million NPAs.

Tony

As you know, I like to test for myself.

Here's a little exercise you can do in the privacy of your bedroom.
Try three stances, one facing the target, one about 3/4, and one edgewise. See if you can find a NPA in each of them. No cheating, now!

Report back.

jackh wrote:quoting from my other post:
"NPA is my term for Natural Position of Alignment. i.e. the gunsight relation to the eye. The shooter must have a "feel" for the correct balance of this position to not be forcing the gun into this eye alignment. Warming and stretching does help."

The concept NPA usually is meant to apply to arm angle. Well it is incomplete to try to point at the target without any discussion on natural sight alignment to the eye. Move your dang feet once you establish yourself and the gunsights aligned position right here on the firing line and no place else.

I agree with your comments. In initially setting up on the line I make sure my arm/body are at the correct angle by closing my eyes, raising my arm, and seeing whether my raised thumb covers the bull. Adjust foot position as required. Then I establish my grip on the pistol and raise the gun with eyes closed. If all is correct the aligned sights should be pointing at the bull.

Fred Mannis wrote:I agree with your comments. In initially setting up on the line I make sure my arm/body are at the correct angle by closing my eyes, raising my arm, and seeing whether my raised thumb covers the bull. Adjust foot position as required. Then I establish my grip on the pistol and raise the gun with eyes closed. If all is correct the aligned sights should be pointing at the bull.

This the same basic process I use. As a side note, if the pistol doesn't point at the target when you raise it & open your eyes, you may need to work on the fit & angle of the pistol's grip. Ideally, you should see the sights nicely aligned on the target without any significant adjustments to your hold.

Fred Mannis wrote:

jackh wrote:quoting from my other post:
"NPA is my term for Natural Position of Alignment. i.e. the gunsight relation to the eye. The shooter must have a "feel" for the correct balance of this position to not be forcing the gun into this eye alignment. Warming and stretching does help."

The concept NPA usually is meant to apply to arm angle. Well it is incomplete to try to point at the target without any discussion on natural sight alignment to the eye. Move your dang feet once you establish yourself and the gunsights aligned position right here on the firing line and no place else.

I agree with your comments. In initially setting up on the line I make sure my arm/body are at the correct angle by closing my eyes, raising my arm, and seeing whether my raised thumb covers the bull. Adjust foot position as required. Then I establish my grip on the pistol and raise the gun with eyes closed. If all is correct the aligned sights should be pointing at the bull.

I take it one more step in the beginning. I ignore the body to target alignment until after the sight to eye alignment. I do not want to muscle the sights into eye alignment, nor the sights to the bull. Both of these efforts must be "natural". By "natural", I mean not forced. I put a priority on the sights to eye alignment. Then I shuffle my feet. And by forced, I mean using conscious mental to align he sights.

Grip design, grip pressure, AP vs CF (big gun vs little gun recoil), wrist angle, arm rotation (cant), arm elevation, head elevation, arm angle, the muscles themselves, and your condition, all are variables in alignment. The package must be as natural as possible throughout the shoot session. And it will likely change throughout, but not by much.

Natural, non-forced, no thought required, Position of Alignment.