Good Shooting

[StevenC.]

Part 1: How accurate is Good?
I define good shooting as the proper execution of fundamentals [essentially] 100% of the time. Fundamentals are, as I am certain you have read elsewhere: a balanced stance, a firm grip, and proper sight alignment with a good sight picture. Most importantly, good shooting requires a great trigger press which allows the gun to fire without disturbing the good sight picture. I found that Fundamental Accuracy is a 4” group at 7 yards.

Many years ago I placed my Glock 34 on a rest and fired 5 specific groups of shots. In the first group I fired with the sights properly aligned. As a result I placed three shots into the center of the target in a sub one inch group. Next, I intentionally moved the front sight in the rear sight notch so that it appeared to touch the inside edge of the rear sight notch’s left wall. The shots were 2” to the left. Then I shot the opposite. I moved the front sight so that it appeared to touch the inside edge of the rear sight notch’s right wall. The shots were 2” to the right. When I centered the front sight in the notch but intentionally deviated the front sight about the same distance high and low as I had left and right, I got shots which were 2” high and low. From this I deduced that any shot within a 4” circle is fundamentally sound if we accept that keeping the front sight in the notch of the rear sight with the rear sight nearly centered on the target is fundamentally sound. This 4” group represents a minimum standard- one in which you are shooting without any gross error. You cannot claim to be a good shooter until you are fundamentally sound. I said, good, not great, because clearly better shooting is possible.


I don’t consider a group good for myself unless it approaches 1” at 7 yards; 4” at 7 yards is simply a minimum standard. Once you can hold every shot in a 4” circle I expect you will note a large majority of your shots landing inside 3” with but a few shots closer to the line describing your 4” diameter. I suspect you will quickly set a goal to hold all of your shots in that 3” circle. With a little more practice most of your shots are landing in a neat 2” groups with a few in a 3” diameter and almost none outside that. Again, you will likely set a goal to hold that 2” group with 100% of your shots. Should that seem challenging to you and say, your M&P Shield as opposed to my Glock 34, I would respond that it is OK; the standard is scalable and adaptable.

It’s adaptable to your gun. Were you to do the same sighting arrangements as I and found a larger or smaller group (based on sights, sight radius, inherent gun accuracy, etc.) then use that group size as your fundamental accuracy. It is scalable to distance. Using my group size of 4” at 7 yards, if you’re at 5 yards, fundamentally sound shooting is akin to 2.85” ((distance/7)*group size). At 10 yards it’s 5.7” inches ((distance/7)*group size). It will also serve to identify your improvement over fundamentally accurate. Should you prove yourself capable of shooting 2” groups at 7 yards you are 50% better than fundamentally sound. A 2” group at 15 yards is about 76% better than fundamentally accurate. I predict, however, you will quickly begin to tire of just shooting small groups. I know that I did, and we all recognize that “speed” is a skill, too.

I regularly play games wherein I try to see how fast I can shoot and keep all shots touching a 2” square. I also use the 4” standard to see how fast I can shoot and not fail at fundamentals. You no doubt noticed that did not share how fast that was. In Part 2, I will share how fast I think is “good.”

 

[Younggun]

I was all set up to argue about people just starting out vs those already trained, keeping motivated, combat accuracy , etc...



But I actually think you make a pretty good generalization. I find nothing worth being obtuse about. Kudos to you.


Great post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dawico]

I was all set up to argue about people just starting out vs those already trained, keeping motivated, combat accuracy , etc...



But I actually think you make a pretty good generalization. I find nothing worth being obtuse about. Kudos to you.


Great post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Who are you and what happened to YG?

I though it was a fair assessment also.

 

[jrbfishn]

More than fair and well thought out. Good going. When I am concentrating on pure accuracy, that's pretty close. Nothing else matters but putting the next round exactly where you want it.

from an idgit coffeeholic

 

[StevenC.]

Thank you. I put these things here for peer review. I know there are good shooters and smart shooters on TGT and I welcome their opinion. Obtuse observations will be considered (they may also be rejected) :-)

Younggun's touch on just starting out was actually considered, just not expounded upon. I teach a lot of beginners. I can get about 90-95% of them to shoot 3, 4 or 5 out of 5 shots into a 3" circle at 7 yards. I don't really count inside 4" but outside 3" against them.

I wouldn't call the 3/5 or 4/5 bad shooters. They are good but not yet consistent. They have an understanding of fundamentals and can demonstrate it with a majority of shots. With practice (see pt 2) they will improve to 100%, then they will shrink it, then they will get faster. They will become better.

 

[benenglish]

...did not share how fast...

Definitely waiting for the "speed" part of this series of posts. After all, if you take speed out of the equation, we should all be striving toward this:

That's 60 shots inside 4 inches, shot at a distance of 50 meters, outdoors. Of course, he took 2 hours to get it done. So, please, tell us about speed; the picture isn't complete without it.

 

[zincwarrior]

I'd proffer this is pure accuracy-bullseye with no time limit.

Inversely a good Bill Drill at 7 yards is what 2 seconds for a master class USPSA shooter? Thats definitely not a 3in plate.

Marksmanship has its place. I've noticed that-to improve your skill set, intentionally keep moving down the target size. Your aiming gets better (if you practice). Obviously round and pistol matters as the deviation from even a brick .22lr is substantially better than most .45 acp rounds.

 

[StevenC.]

That's 60 shots inside 4 inches, shot at a distance of 50 meters, outdoors. Of course, he took 2 hours to get it done. So, please, tell us about speed; the picture isn't complete without it.

2 HOURS!!!!

Hella accuracy though...

 

[StevenC.]

I'd proffer this is pure accuracy-bullseye with no time limit.

Inversely a good Bill Drill at 7 yards is what 2 seconds for a master class USPSA shooter? Thats definitely not a 3in plate.

Actually my friend, my observations to your observation above will largely be covered in part 3. So a wee more patience is requested. And, your not wrong.

Having posted part 2, please read and then consider that a bill drill is just pushing the hairy edge of sacrificing accuracy for speed. The A zone on the USPSA metric is 5.9" wide, 11" tall. The shooter is allowed to sacrifice a bit more accuracy to push down to a draw to 1 second or less with splits at the .20 mark or slightly less [a bit more than what I consider healthy, but it is what it is, I don't consider the bill drill truly flawed].

I've watched lots of shooters attempt the bill drill. Most who make the 2 second, all A standard tend to luck into it. Hell I tend to luck into it. I can not consistently drop 2 sec all A (my draw is weak). Meeting that standard in no way can be considered merely good, that's hella good shooting.

However, I can throw down 2.1-2.3 all A bill drills which is far better than just good.

As I hope I communicated in part 2 I am attempting to suggest a logical standard on how to determine good; good-accurate, good-fast, and maintain the relationship between the two.

Marksmanship has its place. I've noticed that-to improve your skill set, intentionally keep moving down the target size. Your aiming gets better (if you practice). Obviously round and pistol matters as the deviation from even a brick .22lr is substantially better than most .45 acp rounds.

True- hence the observations on adaptable and scalable.

 

[benenglish]

2 HOURS!!!!

Hella accuracy though...

At the time, 2 hours was the length of time the rules allowed. In the early part of the last century, the rules allowed 16 hours. The time allowed has gradually dropped to the current 1 hour and 15 minutes.

BTW, I guess I should have added iron sights and one-handed to that list, too.

In case anyone doesn't recognize that very famous photo, that's Alexander Remmovich Melentyev, the USSR shooter who set the world record for Men's 50M pistol in 1980 with a score of 581 out of a possible 600. He died this last February at the age of 60. His record stood until 2014, when a Korean named Jongoh Jin fired a 583 in qualifying at a World Championship match. Once Melentyev's record had stood for over 30 years, people openly opined that it would never be beaten, primarily because drug testing has become so much more sophisticated since 1980. I admit I was among them and I'm glad that I was proved wrong.

My point, StevenC., was to re-emphasize yours. The fundamentals are important. The level of accuracy achievable by a skilled shooter with a handgun is far, far more than most people realize. Getting students over the mental block of "It's just a handgun; I shouldn't be expected to do any better than <insert arbitrary standard>." is, to my mind, one of the biggest obstacles faced by instructors.

 

[zincwarrior]

Keep em coming StevenC.

Now if you can do an article on overcoming being blind as a bat...

 

[TheDan]

...people openly opined that it would never be beaten, primarily because drug testing has become so much more sophisticated since 1980.

I keep telling people that the Ballmer peak applies to shooting the same as it does to anything else, but it just horrifies the safety ninnies

 

[jrbfishn]

The what???

from an idgit coffeeholic

 

[TheDan]

The what???

Replace "programming skill" with anything... Its the same reason why you shoot pool better after a couple beers, but after a couple more you're worse than sober. There is a sweet spot.

 

[StevenC.]

...My point, StevenC., was to re-emphasize yours. The fundamentals are important. The level of accuracy achievable by a skilled shooter with a handgun is far, far more than most people realize. Getting students over the mental block of "It's just a handgun; I shouldn't be expected to do any better than <insert arbitrary standard>." is, to my mind, one of the biggest obstacles faced by instructors.

No sir, I had no disagreement with your post and read no disagreement in it with my post.

I didn't didn't know who it was or it's significance. I was very pleased to learn a little more about the extreme examples of human capability.

Shooot, I was pleased when I hit an 8" plate at 50 rnds with my second round, two handed. I can usually hold about 90% on a 12" plate, so that drop from 12" to 8" at 50 yards is significant for me.

 

[StevenC.]

I keep telling people that the Ballmer peak applies to shooting the same as it does to anything else, but it just horrifies the safety ninnies

I googled it...

http://observer.com/2012/04/bottoms-up-the-ballmer-peak-is-real-study-says/

That's funny.

 

[jrbfishn]

In other words, relax, it makes things easier.

from an idgit coffeeholic

 

[StevenC.]

In other words, relax, it makes things easier.

from an idgit coffeeholic

Apparently it's have a few shots... please tell me there is an emoji, please oh please.

 

[StevenC.]

Oh what the hell, SigFiend! No booze guzzling emoji?!?!

 

[SIG_Fiend]

Some words on the subject, from roughly 2500 years ago, but still quite relevant:

"When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be."

-Laozi

First off, I think 4" at 7yds is a great place for people to start. It's achievable, realistic, and for many skill levels, not too difficult or easy. Add certain variables, and 4" can even be a difficult standard for a great shooter (time, distance, target, movement). There should always be a degree of pressure. I think once that pressure subsides, and 4" is accomplished consistently, on demand, 1" is certainly a good goal to strive for, and one the average shooter probably won't achieve consistently without a solid degree of practice.

I have spent significant amounts of time and my life, for whatever reason, analyzing and often testing these sorts of things (not to any noteworthy degree in the grand scheme of things by any means, so don't get me wrong). The simplest thing I can think to say on the subject is, in all things, take them to their logical extreme. How much accuracy? ALL of it. How much speed? ALL of it!

As far as the example Ben brought up, all I have to say about that is this. 60 rounds. 2 hours. God, that must have been an excruciating 2 hours, and I'm sure he was SMOKED after that! That degree of mental focus and awareness, for that length of time, is seriously draining. This, then, might serve as a great example of a "logical accuracy extreme" people might want to attempt some time. Even if the variables are not the same (time, distance, speed, accuracy, etc.), it's a great example of doing things a bit outside what the average person may have ever even considered.