The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old March 7, 2023, 12:42 AM   #1
bamaranger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 2009
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 8,273
sights and trigger

In terms solely of accuracy, shooting a handgun well (or any firearm) can be distilled down to "sights and trigger". Expanding that slightly, proper sight alignment and FOCUS, and controlling the trigger, which also addresses the dreaded flinch.

There is more to it than aligning the sights, ...the shooters focus must be on the FRONT sight, with the rear and target blurred. A controlled trigger press, without hammering the trigger and anticipating the recoil (flinch). I'd shot from a very young age, and was a fair shot. When I had those tenets explained to me as a young man at the academy, and applied them over the course of time, my shooting improved noticeably.
bamaranger is offline  
Old March 7, 2023, 03:33 PM   #2
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
I've often heard it said that, when it comes to aimed fire, one can do better with a good trigger and coarse sights than with good sights and a coarse trigger.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old March 9, 2023, 12:02 PM   #3
bamaranger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 2009
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 8,273
oops!

This post was intended to be a reply to the "suck a shooting pistols" thread running nearby. It certainly can be moved or deleted as the Moderator sees fit. Sorry, bama
bamaranger is offline  
Old March 9, 2023, 03:22 PM   #4
Jim Watson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 18,483
I can also point you to authoritatively written pieces that the Kewl Operators are in "threat focus" mode and that needing a good trigger is a crutch that shows you are not a K.O.
Jim Watson is online now  
Old March 12, 2023, 01:40 PM   #5
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
I'm not a "kewl" anything these days, doubt I ever was...

My personal experience with GLock pistols has taught me that service class pistols don't need a good trigger to be popular with agencies buying them...

Since I buy and use my own guns, I don't have to put up with agency issue, and some administrator's idea of what a good gun is. I make my own decisions and one of them is that I don't need to put up with a poor trigger.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old March 16, 2023, 09:23 AM   #6
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,181
sights and trigger

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Watson View Post
I can also point you to authoritatively written pieces that the Kewl Operators are in "threat focus" mode and that needing a good trigger is a crutch that shows you are not a K.O.

I would like to be pointed to these. I don’t see how threat focus and good sights and trigger are mutually exclusive. I do think there are sights that allow you to maintain a threat focus more easily.

Last edited by TunnelRat; March 16, 2023 at 10:17 AM.
TunnelRat is online now  
Old March 16, 2023, 07:34 PM   #7
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
I can see the argument that under extreme stress, when fine motor skills go away, that a poor trigger works well enough, simply because you don't notice how poor it is.

Personally I don't focus on that, as a good trigger will also work fine when your under stress, and works better than a poor trigger the other 99.99999999% of the time, as well.

The last time I was under "extreme threat focus" the gun I had did have a very poor trigger, but, being as it was a belt fed .30 cal, it worked just fine for me...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old March 16, 2023, 11:14 PM   #8
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,181
sights and trigger

In the force on force training I have done with pistols, I have no memory of the trigger during those events beyond when I made the decision to fire and pressed the trigger. Even in what I consciously knew was a fake event my sympathetic nervous system was still in play and I no doubt slapped the trigger while staring at the threat. I can see someone going through that and thinking then that a good trigger and a good set of sights is not important.

However, what I have realized over time is that just because I was not aware in the moment of the weight, length, and smoothness of the trigger pull does not mean it didn’t affect me. There are firearms I own where certain triggers are more or less forgiving of bad technique than others. Pressing a trigger on a handgun well enough to hit a target at range is, to me, a fine motor skill. I’m more conscious of this when shooting at say a range, but I don’t believe the effect goes away when shooting under duress.

Lastly, the reason I asked Jim to point to those individuals or articles specifically is I have seen people time and again say a certain group of people, often a group they may not personally like (“kewl”), claims this or that, with little to no evidence. Often this is a bad interpretation of what was meant or even a full out strawman argument. If you’re going to say there are authoritatively written pieces you can point to, then you should be able to point to them.
TunnelRat is online now  
Old March 18, 2023, 08:54 PM   #9
shafter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2009
Posts: 1,624
Much depends on what is acceptable accuracy for you at a specific distance. At close range (relative to the shooter) rough sights and trigger won't matter much. The further out you go the more everything starts to matter, proper body alignment, breath, grip, sights, trigger squeeze and follow through.

None of pistol shooting is rocket science but you have to put in the time getting good reps. A good class where an instructor can critique you can drastically reduce the learning curve and will probably save money in the long run.
shafter is offline  
Old March 19, 2023, 09:50 PM   #10
bamaranger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 2009
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 8,273
please note

Note that at the onset of this thread, I believed I was responding to a previous thread entitled "I suck at pistol shooting" or words to that effect. Upon realizing that I had initiated a completely new thread, I indicated all the above and left final locale of the discussion to the moderators. Additionally, please note that my comments began with the qualifier "solely of accuracy" and that the thread I believed I was responding to at the time was discussing what I would term "target accuracy". It has since evolved into a conversation regards combat shooting, or shooting under stress. That is all fine and well by me.

Down that path, it has been my observation that those who have developed the skills to manage sights and trigger properly, and shoot well on paper, transfer that ability when under stress, be it competition, force on force training or "shooting for the record" as I have seen it described. Conversely, shooters performing poorly on paper, do not fair as well under stress. That does not mean a "good shot" cannot fair poorly in an threat situation, or a "poor shot" cannot emerge successfully from same. But I am suggesting that a very solid foundation of "sights and trigger" will serve one well in situations much beyond contact distance. It is my belief that though one may not recall the effort, a passable execution of trigger control and sight picture will occur.

It may be a lame example, but.....what skill level would you prefer your adversary posses, novice or master? My own experience with force and force and competition is that I am quite conscious of sight picture and proper front sight focus. When I am shooting poorly, it is almost always because I am hammering the trigger, usually trying to shoot to fast for the distance involved.
bamaranger is offline  
Old March 20, 2023, 12:08 AM   #11
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
Quote:
It may be a lame example, but.....what skill level would you prefer your adversary posses, novice or master?
Well, if I got to choose, I think I would prefer my adversary to lack the skill to operate a weapon at all....

Thinking about it, it puts me in mind of a very old saying about the greatest swordsman...
"the greatest swordsman in the realm does not fear the second greatest swordsman, he fears the worst swordsman in the realm, because he knows what the second greatest swordsman will do...."

Also, regarding skilled shooters and stress, until it actually happens, its all a matter of "maybe" and hoping you will do what you should do. Its been shown that under stress, some people do what they trained to do, (right, or wrong for the situation), some will do nothing, and some will do something completely unpredictable.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old March 20, 2023, 08:08 AM   #12
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by bamaranger
Down that path, it has been my observation that those who have developed the skills to manage sights and trigger properly, and shoot well on paper, transfer that ability when under stress, be it competition, force on force training or "shooting for the record" as I have seen it described. Conversely, shooters performing poorly on paper, do not fair as well under stress. That does not mean a "good shot" cannot fair poorly in an threat situation, or a "poor shot" cannot emerge successfully from same. But I am suggesting that a very solid foundation of "sights and trigger" will serve one well in situations much beyond contact distance. It is my belief that though one may not recall the effort, a passable execution of trigger control and sight picture will occur.
I do and don't agree. If you don't have the skill on a square range to repeatedly have good sight alignment and trigger control, then your chances of having that under duress are, in my experience, low. I have done a few full days of force on force in a group setting and watching probably two dozen people go through the same scenarios as myself. I never saw someone "rise to the occasion" as it were. The people that had poorer fundamentals did poorer than those that didn't, at least in terms of making hits (decision making was sometimes a different story).

That said, both I and many of those I watched missed shots that even the day before on a square range were laughably easy for us. The targets (assailants) were moving, we were moving though an environment with obstacles and other people, and most of us had some degree of adrenaline going. Now many were able to correct for this and realize that their shots weren't hitting, and then get back to good sight alignment and trigger control. There was at least once that this happened to me, where I was missing, realized my sight alignment was poor/non-existent, and got a good sight picture in order to make a needed headshot. The people that were able to correct for their lack of sight alignment and trigger control seemed to keep that lesson in my mind for the rest of the scenarios during that event.

I think all of this to some extent will depend on the level of stress of the event. Competition, even informal, can add stress that makes people "rush their shots", and even training by yourself with a timer can see this. Scenarios where there are a number of factors (location, multiple assailants, bystanders moving in the scenario, etc.), can present your brain with more to track and sometimes what you take for granted, like good sight alignment and trigger control, can fall by the wayside.

Last edited by TunnelRat; March 20, 2023 at 08:15 AM.
TunnelRat is online now  
Old March 20, 2023, 10:16 AM   #13
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,928
I've watched people completely miss a human-sized target at about 3 yards when shooting while moving.

I agree that shooting accurately on a stationary target while standing still is an important skill. What I found when I transitioned from shooting bullseye was that the skills needed to shoot accurately while shooting fast and moving were quite different. They built on the foundation of shooting accurately when time and movement were not an issue, but they also required relearning things.

When I was shooting bullseye, the best results were obtained with a relatively loose grip on the gun. That doesn't work when shooting fast. I had guns that wouldn't even function properly when I tried to use them for bullseye because I would get grip-related malfunctions--I wasn't holding them tightly enough.

When I was shooting bullseye, I tried to deal with natural point of aim issues to get best results. That doesn't even make sense when shooting from the move or when shooting multiple targets or moving targets.

In real world shootings, people very often move because they don't want to get shot. They are very often shooting at moving targets because they are shooting at people who don't want to get shot. They may be shooting at multiple targets because criminals don't always work alone. They are very often shooting very fast because they are scared of dying and perceive that getting a lot of lead downrange is the way to keep themselves alive. Or maybe just because they're so scared they can't slow down.

If you haven't shot from the move, if you haven't shot at moving targets, if you haven't practiced transitioning from one target to another, if you haven't spent time working on your grip so you can shoot fast follow-ups without having the gun shift in your hands, if you haven't shot rapidly so you get used to finding the sights as the gun comes back down from recoil, then it's highly unlikely you'll be able to do any of those things well when you need to.

BEFORE you even start working on all that stuff, you should have sight awareness, sight alignment and trigger technique down. Those skills need to be at the level of unconscious competence before any of the other stuff is going to have a chance of working.

Here are the levels that one goes through as one learns a skillset.

Unconscious incompetence. Unskilled and unaware/mostly unaware of one's skill level.

Conscious incompetence. Unskilled, but aware of one's own skill deficiencies.

Conscious competence. Skilled, but the skill comes from concentration. Able to perform when one can focus on the task.

Unconscious competence. Skilled and able to use those skills even when the focus isn't on carefully completing that specific task--able to use the skills when distracted, focused on something else, or under stress.

A person can do quite well shooting small groups at the range when they are at the conscious competence level because they aren't likely to be distracted, they aren't under much stress and they are focused on nothing other than shooting small groups. You can focus on careful sight alignment, on a careful trigger press, on getting your stance just right, etc.

Gunfights are the definition of stress and distraction. There's a lot going on, you won't have time to think things like: "Get the sights aligned just right...good. Now carefully squeeze the trigger..." because you'll likely be very focused on not getting killed, on getting away or hiding behind something, on who is trying to kill you, on what they are doing, etc. You'll need to have ingrained the ability to track your sights and control your trigger so that they happen without you having to concentrate on them.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old March 20, 2023, 11:07 AM   #14
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,181
I'd add two items onto John's comments.

To me the progression from conscious competence to unconscious competence can be deceptive. In the event I described above where my sight alignment was poor, I had just spent the previous day shooting on the range where I pressed the trigger and aligned my sights without deliberate thought (unconscious competence). Why then did I not do this during the event at the beginning of that scenario? I had an assailant at close range moving aggressively who had just "killed" someone else in the scenario and I was reacting from a position of disadvantage as the assailant already had a gun drawn and I need to draw and react (we were walked into scenarios with a bad over our heads, the bag came off, we were given a very short background at the end of which the scenario began). Again as fake as it was, my sympathetic response system was in full gear. My skill level was such that the added stressors took me back down to conscious competence. Maintaining that unconscious competence during high levels of stress was not easy for me. My skill level has improved since then and I haven't had a similar issue, but it was a learning moment for me. The best outcome is maintaining that unconscious competence as its most likely to see you be successful, but noticing a failure and trying to take corrective action is also a skill.

The other comment I would make that is I think implied in John's comments is decision making. There are the individual skills that are needed to be executed in the event, and often those have to be executed while making decisions. This can be determining if the threat is a threat or someone arriving to help, being mindful of other people moving in the scene (fleeing), or planning your actions based on the time and opportunities you have. All of this additional processing means that any skill that isn't quite at the level of unconscious competence becomes even harder. One of the stronger memories I have was from watching someone else. In one course I did they recorded the other students so we could watch their reactions (I found this very valuable). During one scenario a student had a failure to extract that lead to what is sometimes called a double feed. This happened to him while shooting at someone maybe 30 feet from him. He encountered the failure and his immediate reaction was to clear the malfunction. But he got stuck in doing a tap/rack that had no chance of fixing this malfunction (incorrect assessment of the problem). He went to a crouch and kept trying to fix this, despite the fact that the assailant had closed to say 15 feet and was shooting him over and over with UTM rounds. He was so caught in the task that he didn't realize that practically any other decision (running, rushing the attacker, etc.) was better than what he was doing. He was stuck in the Action part of the OODA loop when his action was failing. On a square range this guy was one of the more competent in the class, but making decisions while executing skills and having the presence of mind to adapt to changing circumstance is a lot for a person to do.
TunnelRat is online now  
Old March 21, 2023, 01:39 AM   #15
shafter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2009
Posts: 1,624
Very good post by John
shafter is offline  
Old March 21, 2023, 08:14 AM   #16
zeke
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 1999
Location: NW Wi
Posts: 1,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by shafter View Post
Very good post by John
yup, and then add on when it starts getting difficult to move (in my case age/joints)
zeke is offline  
Old March 21, 2023, 06:06 PM   #17
cdoc42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 13, 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,674
I have never been in a situation that demands the use of my weapon to defend myself. And, I hope that I never am. But I just read advice that if you can hit 10 rounds in a 10-inch target at 10 yards you should be confident it will suffice in any altercation that requires you to use your weapon. To do the same at 25 yards puts you in an entirely superior position relative to most of your peers.

As it happens, I was at the range today to test my skill in that manner. With my .45 Kimber ACP I qualified, and it was not just taking my time between shots. As well, I hit 80% of hanging bowling pins at 10 yards as well. I switched to my Ruger GP-100 in .38/.357, and with .38 rounds, I did as well - single action . When I switched to .357 Mag rounds in the same gun, I could not find a round on the 10-inch circle target anywhere, let alone in the 10-inch target. I hung a target that shows your shots and explains why you hit where you did. Over 90% of my shots were low and to the left, giving me advice that explains what I was doing wrong. At 10 yards, I used the same sight picture that I had used with the previous 2 calibers. I DID have to pay attention to the rear sight because previously I had just been using the front sight with little attention to the degree of connection to the rear sight But with the .357 I found the center of my target when I elevated almost the entire length of the front sight with the rear sight and focused the target at 6 o'clock. I am assuming this is explained by a higher velocity of the .357.
cdoc42 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.09432 seconds with 8 queries