TargetTalk

I've been thinking about buying a SCATT system for personal use, but every time I get close I choke on the price.

I'm currently shooting 530-540 (AP) and want to move up to the 570+ range (who doesn't?), training 5x/week (see my training diary: http://yotg.net).

Can someone convince me it is worth it?

I know it will make winter practice easier, and give me better feedback on my scores and path traces, but then I look at that price tag, which is twice what I paid for my gun....

Previous generation got to 570+ without the SCATT, though yes, it was a key ingredient in the Russian's success.

honeybadger wrote:I'm currently shooting 530-540 (AP) and want to move up to the 570+ range (who doesn't?), training 5x/week (see my training diary: http://yotg.net).

During those training sessions are you actively trying to improve the basic elements of firing a good shot or simply repeating what you've always done.

If the former then how are you judging the effect of your efforts. Scatt gives you a way of measuring the results in so many more ways than just the score, and being measurable is one of the essentials of effective goal setting.

If it's the latter and you are just repeating what you've always done, I suspect like 90%+ of sub-elite shooters, then Scatt probably won't help much.

David Levene wrote:During those training sessions are you actively trying to improve the basic elements of firing a good shot or simply repeating what you've always done.

If the former then how are you judging the effect of your efforts. Scatt gives you a way of measuring the results in so many more ways than just the score, and being measurable is one of the essentials of effective goal setting.

Thanks, David

When I train, I actively try to improve the basic elements, with the outcome measure tied to the element I am training. I decide the element (or set of elements) before the training session. This is how I moved from 8.1 to 9.0 in two months.

My question is how much SCATT could contribute to taking me from 9.1 to 9.5 in the next two months.

What I have learned in the last two months is how to shoot 10s. My training goal for the next mesocycle is to only take the shots I think will be tens. The first sub-stage is to differentiate between when I am going to shoot a ten and when not. The second is to increase the percentage of times I do those things, and abort the shots where I do not.

Many of the differentiating factors are mental, or mentally observable. Did I pre-visualize? Is my stance stable? How are the sights moving into, and moving around the aiming area? Where is my focus (mental, visual)?

I see that SCATT will more accurately track my [aiming path, hit results, time until release, path after release,...] than I can myself, but this does not mean I am ignorant of these factors. And, if I let SCATT replay the shots for me, then I do not internalize as well as if I do it myself.

No question that SCATT is an advantage. The question is how much of an advantage vs the cost.

Scatt isn't so much an advantage, it's more of a tool. It can only help you if you can learn things from it and apply those factors to improve the technical aspects of your shooting. You can do just as well without one, it can just tell you or your coach more information. I use one whilst coaching but only rarely and to help with specific issues really. It's also very useful when the coach and shooter don't get together as often as would be desired.

Rob.

honeybadger wrote:When I train, I actively try to improve the basic elements, with the outcome measure tied to the element I am training. I decide the element (or set of elements) before the training session. This is how I moved from 8.1 to 9.0 in two months.

You can't measure the success of process goals (what you should be setting when training the individual elements) by using scores; there are too many other factors that can affect those.

Electronic Trainers are not the only way of measuring process goals, but other methods depend on you being totally honest with yourself (easier said than done).

ETs cannot give all of the answers, they are just a tool. They can however give a lot more detailed information than just self-analysis. That's why so many top shooters use them. Just a hint, those top shooters won't be looking at the pretty coloured trace. They'll be looking at the tables of measurements and at the graphs..

Don't buy your own Scatt (or similar).

See if you can borrow one for the occasional training/analysis session.

They are not a substitute for normal training, they are more a tool to compliment your training and something that can be used for technique evaluation and fault finding/correcting.

I beg to differ on many of the points being made here. I guess I'm always the contrarian.

First of all I believe you can train almost exclusively on a SCATT or Rika and probably be better off than if you shot only live bullets.

Second, I almost never look at the charts or stats. It was ONLY the pretty trace. That told me where I was pointed (sight alignment and sight picture) how big my hold was (position mechanics) and how good my trigger squeeze was. What else do you need to know?

Just keep in mind this is from a rifle shooter's perspective.

Eric U

Eric U wrote:What else do you need to know?

How to move the trigger finger independently from the other four digits on that grasping hand - something I've not yet seen from an electronic trainer.

Scatt ~$1400, Case of Tenex ~$1800. Good economics.

Please excuse my ignorance, but how is training the other four fingers not to move with the trigger finger easier with bullets and no trainer. Seems method independent. It would be easy enough to see trace movement on the Scatt if you were moving anything but the trigger finger.

Eric U

Eric U wrote:Scatt ~$1400, Case of Tenex ~$1800.

Thank god pistol shooting doesn't require Tenex!

I'm completely agree with Eric U on this one. I have only a fraction of the skill and experience that he has but I still get more benefits from either only dry firing with a dot on the wall or dry firing using my SCATT.

For me it is a direct link between smaller trace and higher points on the SCATT and when I shoot indoors at 50m. Outdoors comes the wind, the light etc.If I get better on the SCATT the real world score indoors gets better also. I get closer and closer to be scoring only tens in prone on the SCATT and when I look back it feels like many of the shots I shot live before is pretty much unnecessary because so much information about why the shot landed where it landed is lost when the technique is less good.

For an example, I shoot live fire and from time to time I get a shot out to 11 O'clock in the nine ring that I can't read. This will start alot of troubleshooting and occupy my mind to solve this.

When I get on the SCATT I see that it is my pulse beat that have a direction from 5 O'clock to 11 O'clock and therefore if I miss to shoot between heartbeats the shot is thrown out of the ten ring. Solution is to shoot between heartbeats and/or minimize pulse beats transferring to the rifle in position.

This problem was masked by the recoil as the recoil and the heartbeat occured at the same time.

Of course this maybe sound a little weird but if you get to the point where you have a hold that is inside the ten and you keep it there when you activate the trigger and follow through then to hit there is more or less just adjusting your sights to hit where you aimed and use ammunition that hits close to that point every time. The SCATT will show you when you reached that point.

Perhaps it's a rifle/pistol thing.

Would you agree that pistol shooting is about trigger control whereas rifle is more about hold?

j-team wrote:Perhaps it's a rifle/pistol thing.

Would you agree that pistol shooting is about trigger control whereas rifle is more about hold?

Scatt is far more useful for coaching rifle than pistol, but predominantly because as a coach, you can't see very much of what the shooter is doing or even where the gun is pointing. Scatt will identify things like consistency of approach, follow through (yes even dry firing) and numerous other things. But scatt will not tell you anything about the triggering, trigger movement, positional consistency etc. So when I coach rifle it will typically include a scatt session combined with observations. With pistol I won't use scatt anywhere near as much as I can see most things with my eyes, or by talking to the shooter.

As David points out you can't use score as a measure of process goals. You also can't assume smaller hold = better scores, although there's likely to be a connection. But scatt will give you a number for your hold / trace length but it won't tell you how to improve it or even what factors may be contributing to it.

Rob.

Thanks, all, for your insights. I know you can't answer my question for me. I do find it very helpful, however, to be able to openly discuss my thoughts and concerns with people who know what they are talking about, and also Rover.

Eric's math sums up my question:

Eric U wrote:Scatt ~$1400, Case of Tenex ~$1800.

showing that for rifle, SCATT is a no-brainer. For AP, the SCATT costs the same as ~100,000 pellets, or four to five years worth (100 per session x 5 sessions/week, add vacations). Less obvious.

It is a price/value question. No doubt SCATT would help me, but at what cost, and do I have other resources/abilities which can give me (near) equal improvement without the cost?

RobStubbs wrote:SCATT is also very useful when the coach and shooter don't get together as often as would be desired.

Well, my current coaching team is my ancestral spirits. I'm sure they can find a way to incorporate SCATT, though it wasn't around when they mastered the art... :)

I would like a good living coach, however, and as I don't know of any local ones, I can certainly see SCATT as useful for communicating with an internet coach.

Which brings up another question for me. I see that SCATT is helpful if you know how to use it, but here also I would be feeling my way forward.

David Levene wrote: You can't measure the success of process goals (what you should be setting when training the individual elements) by using scores; there are too many other factors that can affect those.

Very true, certainly at the level of an individual training session. But it is easier to say "i went from 8 to 9" than to give a long list of the individual elements I trained, along with the definitions of how I quantify improvement in each element. Would you agree that change in average score after two months is a fair measure of overall improvement, and a fair goal to set for a training mesocycle?

RobStubbs wrote:With pistol ... I can see most things with my eyes, or by talking to the shooter. ... Scatt will give you a number for your hold / trace length but it won't tell you how to improve it or even what factors may be contributing to it.

Which is one of my concerns.

Shooting is a form of meditation. I frequently reach a state of deep body/mind awareness. In that state I notice both my trace pattern and also some of the factors connected to it, and specifically I notice the factors which my mind/body is tuned to improve.

This growth process is the most rewarding aspect, though I also look forward to winning more and bigger competitions, and making a name for myself.

honeybadger wrote:

David Levene wrote: You can't measure the success of process goals (what you should be setting when training the individual elements) by using scores; there are too many other factors that can affect those.

Very true, certainly at the level of an individual training session. But it is easier to say "i went from 8 to 9" than to give a long list of the individual elements I trained, along with the definitions of how I quantify improvement in each element. Would you agree that change in average score after two months is a fair measure of overall improvement, and a fair goal to set for a training mesocycle?

I would respectfully suggest that an improvement from 8 to 9 in a short period for a new shooter is perfectly normal and would usually be down to muscle tone giving increased stability, as well as an improvement in the technical elements. Which of those elements has improved is difficult to know, and it will become more difficult as your shooting improves further, unless you have some way of measuring them.

Keep at it, improvement will continue but don't expect it to be at the same rate.

OK, lets sidetrack a little bit to illustrate a point.

How good is your trigger control ? <don't answer it's just a metaphorical question>

So how and where on the trigger does your finger go, and how consistent is it ? - Scatt can't tell you
How long are you on aim for and is it consistent - Scatt can tell you this
Is your trigger release smooth - scatt can't tell you this but it may give you an indication if you snatch the trigger

So Scatt (or other ET) can tell you only a little bit about your triggering and nothing about the (IMHO) more important aspects.

Also Scatt can only record 10 seconds or so of your shot and follow through, the rest of the detail isn't captured, so that's the raise and perhaps lower into the target (at least most of it as you'll be off sensor) as well as everything else - stance, body position, alignment, gripping, breathing - all of which are very important and all of which need to be learned and trained. Overuse or reliance on scatt can lead to focusing on just what it measures and tells you and not on anything else.

Rifle shooters can be a perfect example - "my percentage hold in an area the size of the 10.5 is 95%". That's nice but it doesn't give you a clue as to whats happening anywhere else in the shot process or what else they may be doing good or bad. Ask them what their trigger control is like and they will often have no idea, or worse think it's good when in reality it's quite poor.

Rob.

David Levene wrote:I would respectfully suggest that an improvement from 8 to 9 in a short period for a new shooter is perfectly normal

suggestion taken, and appreciated.

RobStubbs wrote:So Scatt (or other ET) can tell you only a little bit about your triggering and nothing about the (IMHO) more important aspects

Rob, I appreciate this informed opinion. At what point would you incorporate SCATT training into an AP training program, and with what objectives in mind?

Also, how does dry-fire with SCATT compare to live-fire? (disregarding all the stats that SCATT tracks for you)

honeybadger wrote:Rob, I appreciate this informed opinion. At what point would you incorporate SCATT training into an AP training program, and with what objectives in mind?

There's no one simple answer, it all depends on the shooter, what they are working on or having trouble with and perhaps more if they live some distance from me and by sending me scatt files, can give me more information than just a verbal report. So one simple example is a shooter who held on for way too long for some of his shots. It's easy for me to remotely monitor that single element from his scatt traces, but I can't of course see if he's developed other errors.

Also, how does dry-fire with SCATT compare to live-fire? (disregarding all the stats that SCATT tracks for you)

For scatt you need to use it in the same mode all the time. Train with it live or dry, don't mix and match. That's not to say you cannot do both, it's just very difficult to track progress using mixed modes as you can't really compare a set shot live with a set shot dry.

Rob.

Rob,

If you expell air when you "dry fire" is that live or dry? I appreciate the thought, just trying to clarify

redschietti wrote:Rob,

If you expell air when you "dry fire" is that live or dry? I appreciate the thought, just trying to clarify

I think some of the responses are talking AP and some Bullseye or other pistol.

I live fire my AP and dry fire everything else (bullseye & free pistols, service & match rifles). I don't know if my LP10E would trip the SCATT sensor in dry fire mode, but I haven't tried either. I know you can adjust the sensitivity but I haven't messed with it.