Bullseye Shooting

In a sense, both.

If you don't want to shoot one-handed then you won't take up Bullseye because the rules require it. ;)
 
Thanks. If the rules didn't require it would many change to a two-hand hold, or has the traditional way proven to work better?
 
I doubt I would change to using two hands if they change the rules. However I doubt they will ever change the rules, it would defeat the purpose.
 
Shooting with two hands is going to offer significant benefits over shooting with one hand.

There are handgun competitions that are primarily accuracy competitions (no reloads on the clock, no moving & shooting, etc.) that allow the use of both hands, but they are not called Bullseye and never will be.

Bullseye and the rules that are associated with it were developed at a time when handguns were invariably shot with one hand. There's no reason to change the rules at this point, people who want to shoot with both hands can find competition disciplines that allow it.
 
Please don't get me wrong, I wasn't suggesting the rules be changed. I know some of the best pistol marksmen are Bullseye shooters and was wondering about the style. Basically, is it more accurate to shoot one handed or two?

In my mind two handed shooting gives an edge in rapid fire when you need to get the sights back on target quickly. I don't know if it really helps you hit the x-ring at 50 yards.

In any case, I have a ways to go before I'll be trying my handguns at 50 yards as 15 is still pushing my limits.
 
Shooting with two hands is going to offer significant benefits (including better accuracy) over shooting with one hand.
 
Bullseye

gives an edge in rapid fire when you need to get the sights back on target quickly. I don't know if it really helps you hit the x-ring at 50 yards.
I suppose that depends on how rapid "rapid fire" is (and, of course, on the gun being used). The "five shots in 10 seconds" of a Bullseye rapid string is quite controllable, though compared to other disciplines the target is more precise and is still 25 yards away. It's all about rhythm and trigger control.
Logically, using two hands should provide an advantage but, at this point in my shooting, adding the second hand back in changes the mechanics and screws up my shooting; I shoot better if I just stay with one hand.
Pete
 
Logically, using two hands should provide an advantage but, at this point in my shooting, adding the second hand back in changes the mechanics and screws up my shooting; I shoot better if I just stay with one hand.
I suppose if you've done a LOT of one-handed shooting and very little two-handed shooting you might be more accurate with one-hand. It would be, by far, the exception rather than the rule. And with a little two-handed practice one could rapidly reverse the situation.
 
Basically, is it more accurate to shoot one handed or two?

As suggested, a 2-handed hold seems more accurate for many shooters, but as also suggested (and rapid fire aside), it may simply be because that's the way most people do most of their shooting. We tend to get good at what we practice. I shoot better 2-handed, but I've been practicing 1-handed and am making good progress.

As far as inherent accuracy, though, I could make an argument for the 1-handed hold, though I'm no shining example myself: The consistency with which a gun moves the instant the shot is fired plays a significant role in accuracy. Since the shooter's grip has a major effect on that consistency, I'd argue that, logically, a 1-handed grip is easier to keep consistent. For example, with a 2-handed grip, you've got 5 extra digits (connected to an extra arm) touching the gun and applying pressure, so each one is applying its own force on the gun and affecting its movement when the shot breaks. To perfect the 2-handed hold, then, you'd have to also develop perfect consistency with those 5 additional digits and 1 arm.

OTOH, there's the additional wobble you typically see with a 1-handed hold, but IMO, that gets better with practice, but never goes away anyway, even with a 2-handed grip. And besides, wobble may not be as important as maintaining sight alignment and a consistent grip.
 
My own (very unscientific) guess is that the really high-end shooters - guys turning in scores in the 290s - would do no better, and maybe worse, if they went to a two-handed grip. For the rest of us mere mortals, I'm sure scores would rise, perhaps not immediately but definitely in the long run.
 
Bullseye shooting is arguably the toughest shooting discipline you can compete in. As a long time bullseye shooter, I would rue the day two-handed shooting would be allowed. Bullseye shooting is supposed to be difficult. But if they ever do, trust me, just about everybody would be shooting with both mitts.

Of course, to my everlasting chagrin, scopes were permitted years ago. This heresy was perpetrated on us apparently because too many people complained that irons were too hard to use and that better scores could be achieved with glass. Well, duh...What percentage of bullseye shooters do you think use open sights today?
 
I was always taught that if a handgun was meant to be shot with two hands it would have two handles on it.

I still to this day prefer shooting one-handed. With the body turned at an angle I can also get the pistol further away from my eyes with one hand and just that one factor I feel really helps in accuracy.
 
You'll occasionally find BE leagues that allow two-handed shooting, but not sanctioned matches. Some folks are just too shaky to shoot one handed, due to physical handicaps.

It's my understanding that BE's rules were adapted from military and police training techniques and formats back in the day - and these taught one-handed pistol shooting. So that's where the rule comes from.
 
Again, bullseye shooting is supposed to be difficult... I would have no objection to having specific classifications for those who are infirm-heck, I'd probably qualify for such an exception given my age and eyesight limitations-but I'm unalterably FOR keeping the discipline as originally conceived, pure and intact.
 
Bullseye

Those are the rules and I'm happy to play that way. I shoot bullseye and everything else one handed because after all that practice, I do better that way. I shoot falling plates with 45acp and 9mm at the club. I also shoot iron sights because I challenge myself in that additional way. But that's just me.
 
iron

.What percentage of bullseye shooters do you think use open sights today?
Not a large percentage. Still, it took a looong time to eclipse Bill Blankenship's record. And then, not by much.
Happily, a fellow in my club in Brooklyn, NY is ardently working on his master class qualification; he's doing it shooting irons. And he's doing quite well.
Pete
 
One hand or two hands, depends on the shooter and proficiency level.
Some days I shoot better with one hand, others, with two hands.
 
What percentage of bullseye shooters do you think use open sights today?

My rough guess would be about 20%, but I've been to a lot of matches where there are more, and some where I'm the only person shooting w/ iron sights. You'll tend to see them more often at outdoor matches.

The funny thing about BE matches in my area is that the shooters at the sponsoring clubs often have different preferences for guns and sight configurations, so their matches will reflect this. You might go to one where the shooters are very competitive, and nearly everyone's using a dot. But then at another match you'll see a lot of iron sights, or even a lot revolvers.
 
My rough guess would be about 20%, but I've been to a lot of matches where there are more, and some where I'm the only person shooting w/ iron sights. You'll tend to see them more often at outdoor matches.

A good bit less than 20% in the two leagues I shoot in here in eastern Massachusetts, maybe one shooter in 20 or less - but they're both indoor gallery leagues, so that may have something to do with it.
 
Back
Top