Try shooting at a 2 inch circle at 12 ft. Work on getting all six or ten into the circle. It will absolutely show you what bad habits you have that you need to work on and you get to see each and every shot. Once you can consistently put them all in the circle, move back to 15 or 20 or 25 etc.. Make it fun too. Change up with some reactive type targets after your paper practice session.
target distance and grouping
- Thread starter explorin2
- Start date
i'll argue with you on this till the cows come home lol.
For the second time.
To clarify even further. I did not mean a person will anticipate the recoil every time they pull the trigger. I mean they will occasionally pull a shot because they anticipated the recoil (what is commonly called flinching). It doesn't matter how good you are, once in a while it will happen. The better your skill level, the less it happens, and the less your shot will be affected.
As a real life example, the CAG shooter I was on the line with a few weeks ago would have a 'bad' shot every so often. But, when he anticipated the recoil (which he would call), his 'bad' shot would be in the 8-ring instead of the 10 or x.
And if you still want to argue my point, go ahead.
I won't be listening though.
Care to elaborate?
I made my point pretty clearly, and see no use in 'arguing' it further.
What is interesting in this thread (to me at least) is the variation in expectation and understanding of shooting mechanics on the basis of the degree of training you have.
Most here do not know who WP is; however he is trained to an elite level and so his concept of "flinch" is very different than an average shooter. The "flinch" he is describing would not be recognized by a normal shooter; they would consider it a good shot and consequently, possibly argue that there was no "flinch", because the severity of the flinch would not be sufficient to trigger their awareness.
This is similar to riding in a car with a master mechanic: your engine may have an occasional "miss" which you are not capable of perceiving, but which the mechanic recognizes immediately. He is able to tell you that the engine is not working correctly when the problem is very small, while you, the relatively untrained driver, would require a major, severe issue to crop up before you would notice something is not right.
Therefore, the mechanic is not wrong when he tells you the car is not working right. It means you are not sufficiently skilled to diagnose the issues that a master mechanic will notice, which is normal: you have not devoted years of your life to full-time diagnostic work on vehicles. The only issue is this: do you know enough to know when to argue and when to learn? It's possible that even a highly trained mechanic will be wrong, but do you know the situation well enough to determine whether this is true?
Most here do not know who WP is; however he is trained to an elite level and so his concept of "flinch" is very different than an average shooter. The "flinch" he is describing would not be recognized by a normal shooter; they would consider it a good shot and consequently, possibly argue that there was no "flinch", because the severity of the flinch would not be sufficient to trigger their awareness.
This is similar to riding in a car with a master mechanic: your engine may have an occasional "miss" which you are not capable of perceiving, but which the mechanic recognizes immediately. He is able to tell you that the engine is not working correctly when the problem is very small, while you, the relatively untrained driver, would require a major, severe issue to crop up before you would notice something is not right.
Therefore, the mechanic is not wrong when he tells you the car is not working right. It means you are not sufficiently skilled to diagnose the issues that a master mechanic will notice, which is normal: you have not devoted years of your life to full-time diagnostic work on vehicles. The only issue is this: do you know enough to know when to argue and when to learn? It's possible that even a highly trained mechanic will be wrong, but do you know the situation well enough to determine whether this is true?
I never saw anyone learn anything by being demeaned.How is being told you suck at something, when you really are not good at it, demeaning?
When I'm out shooting with the guys I know, if I screw up a shot, or miss a time, and they tell me I suck (in terms much less nice than that), that's not demeaning.
That just tells me, along with my own visual perception of whats going on, that I need improvement in that area, or that I wasn't paying attention, or tried to rush things, or any number of possible issues.
But it's not demeaning.
I think it fits. Professional coming onto a sight where people aren't "elite" and telling them they suck is demeaning.
demeaningpresent participle of de·mean (Verb)
Ver
Cause a severe loss in the dignity of and respect for (someone or something).
Do something that is beneath one's dignity.
demeaningpresent participle of de·mean (Verb)
Ver
Cause a severe loss in the dignity of and respect for (someone or something).
Do something that is beneath one's dignity.
I'd like to think that a lot of people would be better shots if their targets were interactive. Bullseye targets aren't that fun to shoot. You aim for the middle circle and shoot but if you have to wait for a ceasefire or bring your target back home to see how you did...you may be ingraining bad habits.
I think a lot of people would do better if it was say, some kind of match shooting cans or something that will react when shot. Feedback is how we learn the best, right? Unfortunately, most places just have paper targets to shoot.
Personally I have been in the sport for a while and I love handgun shooting. I should really get some instruction. I'm not very good, and I admit that. BUT...every time I go, I bring a new shooter along. And we share a target. So I have absolutely no idea who's shots went where.
If we were shooting interactive stuff, it would be more effective.
I think a lot of people would do better if it was say, some kind of match shooting cans or something that will react when shot. Feedback is how we learn the best, right? Unfortunately, most places just have paper targets to shoot.
Personally I have been in the sport for a while and I love handgun shooting. I should really get some instruction. I'm not very good, and I admit that. BUT...every time I go, I bring a new shooter along. And we share a target. So I have absolutely no idea who's shots went where.
If we were shooting interactive stuff, it would be more effective.
Re-read post #26. Here, I'll even make it easy, this is the important part.
And if you ask anyone that knows something about using a pistol or acceptable accuracy, such as misanthropist, you'll get the same response about how acceptable a 2 foot square group at 5 yards or less is (hint: it isn't acceptable).
Honesty can be a mean and brutal thing.
Not really. Shooting (at) steel and reactive targets can be far more harmful to a persons confidence and skill than learning on non-reactive paper.
Google 'paper and steel don't lie' by kyle defoor.
Here's a small portion. The rest is even better.
"You can fool yourself repeatedly with steel targets if you’re not careful, both in speed and accuracy. It’s unwise to make yourself feel good about something you really suck at by using a large gong as your biggest fan, letting it talk to you and tell you lies."
I find the first part of this comment funny for reasons a few people here will immediately recognize.
No, I have about ten pages open while I do other things and just happened to respond at that time.
OldFrankHog
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Gatineau QC
*BEEP*
Un-holster
Shoot
Shoot
Holster
*BEEP*
Time elapsed : 2 seconds or less
Shots Fired : At least 2
Distance : Whatever you want
Group under 6 inch : BULL####
Keep doing IPSC and telling yourself you rock!
Un-holster
Shoot
Shoot
Holster
*BEEP*
Time elapsed : 2 seconds or less
Shots Fired : At least 2
Distance : Whatever you want
Group under 6 inch : BULL####
Keep doing IPSC and telling yourself you rock!
