How do you shoot at the range?
- Thread starter 45Gunner
- Start date
interesting
Interesting. Very.
We have such different takes on this set of ideas...
as to the 8th grade, HS, College thing....I see it precisely opposite. But I suppose, it all depends on what you intend to get as a degree.
All that running around, I am sure is fun....it looks like fun. For my money, though, accuracy is the name of the game and regardless of how athletic and talented a combat shooter is....the targets are bigger and closer and much of what goes on....while fun....has little or nothing to do with shooting per se.
Now that I have said that....i understand that it is an inaccurate evaluation.
Combat shooting must be judged as a complete thing, an integration of movement and shooting...not each part separately. Much like Olympic Biathlon.
I can say about Bullseye shooting that the emphasis is on precison. What is the emphasis, would you say, in Combat shooting since so much is added?
Pete
Interesting. Very.
We have such different takes on this set of ideas...
as to the 8th grade, HS, College thing....I see it precisely opposite. But I suppose, it all depends on what you intend to get as a degree.
All that running around, I am sure is fun....it looks like fun. For my money, though, accuracy is the name of the game and regardless of how athletic and talented a combat shooter is....the targets are bigger and closer and much of what goes on....while fun....has little or nothing to do with shooting per se.
Now that I have said that....i understand that it is an inaccurate evaluation.
Combat shooting must be judged as a complete thing, an integration of movement and shooting...not each part separately. Much like Olympic Biathlon.
I can say about Bullseye shooting that the emphasis is on precison. What is the emphasis, would you say, in Combat shooting since so much is added?
Pete
Last edited:
Bullseye is about shooting for the sake of shooting.
Combat shooting is about shooting as self-defense (or as offense for millitary/LE).
Saying one comes "before" the other depends on where you're trying to go, but training in one isn;t going to be a very effective way to get better at the other.
Or at least that's my opinion/impression.
Last edited:
Accuracy is always the goal, its just what is acceptable accuracy depends on your discipline or goals.
The targets may appear to be bigger at first blush, but when you consider that you have to find and hit specific areas of those targets, with no (usually) perceived aiming point, and how small those areas are, the sizes of the targets are not all that much different. Its just perspective. The heads on the photo targets I use, are roughly 6"x 6", COM (or, depending on the angle to it) isnt a whole lot different. Whats the bull on a 25 yard slow fire target? 6" or so?
All that "running around" also varies as the distance opens up. The farther apart you are from the target, the more time opens up as well, and you have more time for less animation and more precision, with a more traditional sight picture, than you do at 3 yards, where you likely arent seeing the sights at all as you move off line.
With most of my autos, I personally dont start to get a traditional sight picture until Im clearing 10-15 yards or so, and see the three dots on my sights first. On my revolvers, I see the red insert/painted tip of the front sight.
These days, with getting older and my eyes not being what they used to be, Im finding 25+ yards is getting to be more and more of a challenge. Focusing on the front sight and hitting those smaller, fuzzy and unclear targets is becoming more problematical.
I shot these three yesterday using my 4" S&W Model 28 (just got it late last week and it was my second time out with it.
).
The first target was shot at 3-5 yards, starting from a "SUL" ready, and moving off laterally as I was presenting the gun, two to three quick DAO shots each time, no sights. (there are more in the head here as I was fooling around here a little bit too.)
The second at 10-15 yards, same as above, but this time with a flash sight picture.
The third, 25 yards, again from SUL, but stationary, with a more focused traditional sight picture, again, double taps, DAO.
The targets may appear to be bigger at first blush, but when you consider that you have to find and hit specific areas of those targets, with no (usually) perceived aiming point, and how small those areas are, the sizes of the targets are not all that much different. Its just perspective. The heads on the photo targets I use, are roughly 6"x 6", COM (or, depending on the angle to it) isnt a whole lot different. Whats the bull on a 25 yard slow fire target? 6" or so?
All that "running around" also varies as the distance opens up. The farther apart you are from the target, the more time opens up as well, and you have more time for less animation and more precision, with a more traditional sight picture, than you do at 3 yards, where you likely arent seeing the sights at all as you move off line.
With most of my autos, I personally dont start to get a traditional sight picture until Im clearing 10-15 yards or so, and see the three dots on my sights first. On my revolvers, I see the red insert/painted tip of the front sight.
These days, with getting older and my eyes not being what they used to be, Im finding 25+ yards is getting to be more and more of a challenge. Focusing on the front sight and hitting those smaller, fuzzy and unclear targets is becoming more problematical.
I shot these three yesterday using my 4" S&W Model 28 (just got it late last week and it was my second time out with it.
). The first target was shot at 3-5 yards, starting from a "SUL" ready, and moving off laterally as I was presenting the gun, two to three quick DAO shots each time, no sights. (there are more in the head here as I was fooling around here a little bit too.)
The second at 10-15 yards, same as above, but this time with a flash sight picture.
The third, 25 yards, again from SUL, but stationary, with a more focused traditional sight picture, again, double taps, DAO.
I would say, its not much different than a rapid fire bulls eye string, rapidly hitting what youre looking at, and doing so, multiple times. Its just there is usually more going on, and the hits on target are not always little groups. Still, they are usually "good" hits, not that a "bad" hit in this case, is a bad thing, as there really is no such thing as a bad hit, as long as your not the one taking it.
If possible, it's probably prudent and worthwhile to attend at least a basic handgun safety class and then a defensive-oriented handgun training class. It's not easy to know what you don't know without an instructor observing and assessing you.
Before I entered LE I thought I was pretty competent at shooting my 1911, DA & SA revolvers. I was an avid handloader and did a lot of shooting. Not any sort of competitor, but just an avid handgunner who first learned to shoot as a youngster under the tutelage of my father.
Having to shoot LE revolver quals as a young cop, for score & time, showed me where I needed improvement.
Then, after several years I decided to try and become a LE firearms instructor. I figured it was a good way to get even more training & practice, and teaching other folks helps instructors continue to learn. (Something I learned as a younger martial arts practitioner.) The basic firearms instructor class again showed me where I needed some further training and refinement.
Recurrent training over the years, including now working alongside fellow firearms instructors of a wide range of training & experience of their own, continued to show me areas where I needed ever more development.
Nowadays, younger shooters have an advantage of a lot more handgun training being commercially available ... with the caveat that "buyer beware" is still a prudent consideration. Maybe some NRA sanctioned classes for basic skills and knowledge?
Then, the acquired skills can be tested, practiced and hopefully refined by finding any IDPA events that may be conveniently located to the budding enthusiast.
Having a qualified instructor/trainer lend a hand is still the best way to get some good training and learn the difference between good & bad habits.
Having hit 60, and being retired, but still keeping my hand in things as a firearms instructor, I try to keep my skills current by taking advantage of having access to an agency range where I occasionally work. I don't get fancy, but tend to do a lot of whatever current qual/training sessions are being run, which typically means 1-11 yds. This can include shooting-while-moving, shooting & moving, multiple threat targets, judgment/decision-making by including non-threat targets, different positions (standing, kneeling, prone, supine), off-hand (also called weak-hand, if you'd rather), barricade/cover use & shooting, etc. It changes all the time. I also slip in other demanding drills we've periodically developed, or "borrowed" from elsewhere, over the years.
It still comes back to well-learned & ingrained "basics", though. Proper practice keeps them ingrained and accessible.
I also still include shooting longer distances to make sure my "basic" handgun skills aren't rusting away (which includes handgun shooting at distances from as close as 15 yds to as far away as 75 yds using paper or steel targets). This dates back to my revolver days, when making aimed 25-50 yd shots wasn't exactly uncommon for qualifying courses-of-fire here & there.
During an instructor update class I attended a while back, they taped over the sights of everyone's service pistols and made us run a course of fire which included 50 yd targets. Everyone was able to pass this course of fire before we moved on to something else, although it did seem harder for some than others, with older, more experienced instructors seeming to have an easier time with it. (Basics, basics, basics ... and, being older, also being able to see the threat target at 50 yds.
)
Before I entered LE I thought I was pretty competent at shooting my 1911, DA & SA revolvers. I was an avid handloader and did a lot of shooting. Not any sort of competitor, but just an avid handgunner who first learned to shoot as a youngster under the tutelage of my father.
Having to shoot LE revolver quals as a young cop, for score & time, showed me where I needed improvement.
Then, after several years I decided to try and become a LE firearms instructor. I figured it was a good way to get even more training & practice, and teaching other folks helps instructors continue to learn. (Something I learned as a younger martial arts practitioner.) The basic firearms instructor class again showed me where I needed some further training and refinement.
Recurrent training over the years, including now working alongside fellow firearms instructors of a wide range of training & experience of their own, continued to show me areas where I needed ever more development.
Nowadays, younger shooters have an advantage of a lot more handgun training being commercially available ... with the caveat that "buyer beware" is still a prudent consideration. Maybe some NRA sanctioned classes for basic skills and knowledge?
Then, the acquired skills can be tested, practiced and hopefully refined by finding any IDPA events that may be conveniently located to the budding enthusiast.
Having a qualified instructor/trainer lend a hand is still the best way to get some good training and learn the difference between good & bad habits.
Having hit 60, and being retired, but still keeping my hand in things as a firearms instructor, I try to keep my skills current by taking advantage of having access to an agency range where I occasionally work. I don't get fancy, but tend to do a lot of whatever current qual/training sessions are being run, which typically means 1-11 yds. This can include shooting-while-moving, shooting & moving, multiple threat targets, judgment/decision-making by including non-threat targets, different positions (standing, kneeling, prone, supine), off-hand (also called weak-hand, if you'd rather), barricade/cover use & shooting, etc. It changes all the time. I also slip in other demanding drills we've periodically developed, or "borrowed" from elsewhere, over the years.
It still comes back to well-learned & ingrained "basics", though.
Proper practice keeps them ingrained and accessible.I also still include shooting longer distances to make sure my "basic" handgun skills aren't rusting away (which includes handgun shooting at distances from as close as 15 yds to as far away as 75 yds using paper or steel targets). This dates back to my revolver days, when making aimed 25-50 yd shots wasn't exactly uncommon for qualifying courses-of-fire here & there.
During an instructor update class I attended a while back, they taped over the sights of everyone's service pistols and made us run a course of fire which included 50 yd targets. Everyone was able to pass this course of fire before we moved on to something else, although it did seem harder for some than others, with older, more experienced instructors seeming to have an easier time with it. (Basics, basics, basics ... and, being older, also being able to see the threat target at 50 yds.
)NRA B16 SF target bull is 5.3"....pretty close to the six that you supposed. If you want to win....you must be shooting the nine and ten ring ...2.6".
There is something to be said, also, about the mindset/ philosophy that underlies different competitions. Bullseye shooting is, as I see it, a sporting event. Combat shooting at human silhouettes or photo posters is substantially different.....otherwise the targets would be round bulls or simple poppers.
Not better or worse....different.
There is something to be said, also, about the mindset/ philosophy that underlies different competitions. Bullseye shooting is, as I see it, a sporting event. Combat shooting at human silhouettes or photo posters is substantially different.....otherwise the targets would be round bulls or simple poppers.
Not better or worse....different.
I was once asked if I would rather be in the State next to ours where type III firearms (full auto) are allowed. My answer was "no, I don't want to spend my money that fast."
A IDPA stage (18 shots w/ one mag change) will be over in 15 to 20 seconds. I enjoy shooting and like taking my time to improve accuracy. I usually spend hours at the range shooting, you will be there a matter of a few minutes at that rate or a half hour at the most.
"Real World"??? Sorry, I do not recognize the planet you are from where paper targets shoot back at you. (A dead center hit is much better than 10 near misses)
Just my view on it.
Jim
Last edited:
g.willikers
New member
So, where's the real controversy here?
A good shootist needs to be able to do it all.
Fast and accurate at the closer distances.
A precision shot at long distance.
With handguns, shotguns, rifles, anything and everything.
With right hand, left hand, two hands, standing, sitting, kneeling, prone, from behind cover, around corners, under obstacles, standing on one's head if need-be.
A good shootist practices everything.
Keeps things from getting boring and routine, too.
A good shootist needs to be able to do it all.
Fast and accurate at the closer distances.
A precision shot at long distance.
With handguns, shotguns, rifles, anything and everything.
With right hand, left hand, two hands, standing, sitting, kneeling, prone, from behind cover, around corners, under obstacles, standing on one's head if need-be.
A good shootist practices everything.
Keeps things from getting boring and routine, too.
skills
That is quite an ideal. I take exception to the word "needs" (a very dangerous word in the wrong hands) and to some of those skills.....I have no need for at least the last four.
As to controversy....there is none. Just some discussion of what some shooters do at the range and why.
Pete
That is quite an ideal. I take exception to the word "needs" (a very dangerous word in the wrong hands) and to some of those skills.....I have no need for at least the last four.
As to controversy....there is none. Just some discussion of what some shooters do at the range and why.
Pete
Perceived (however you like) controversy aside, I agree totally.
A good shooter should be able to pick up pretty much anything they might find, and be able to put it to work, and do so "reasonably" well. You dont get that from "specialization". At the very least, if you only have one gun, and carry it, you should be proficient with it, and in any way it might be possibly needed, dont you think?
Its not dangerous or irresponsible, if youre not dangerous or irresponsible.
A lot of that is perception as well too, dont you think? Who is doing the perceiving, and what are they basing what they perceive on? How do people who have never drawn a loaded gun from a holster and shot while moving, or anything else they are unfamiliar with, perceive someone who does? You dont have to answer that, I already know quite well, and heard more of my share of it. One big downfall to our sport and/or passion, is our own selves, and the divisions and animosities in our ranks. Having been a full auto/military/combat type shooter in a number of "sportsmans" clubs, its amazing we have any gun rights left, when you consider what others who dont like what you shoot, have to say about your "need" to have them, or your need to practice like that.
Most indoor (and many outdoor) ranges Ive been to have basically "lawyered up", and pretty much "everything" beyond the old hand in the pocket, one hand shooting darkgael favors, and/or anything other than bulls eye targets and more than one round every two seconds or so is verboten.
Makes you wonder where all the people who carry a gun these days, gain their experience from, and get their practice in. To me, those who carry a gun and believe that basing their gun handling skills on what they do leisurely shooting bulls eyes, and think they are prepared, is dangerous and irresponsible. How do you acquire the necessary skills, if you cant practice at least somewhat realistically?
One thing I really dont miss at all, indoor or out, are overbearing RO's, which many ranges seem to have at least a couple of (along with some of the counter guys at a lot of these places).
I understand the need for some control, but we dont need the nannys who seem to have to constantly hover over you every second and critique your every move, and try to find you breaking any possible infraction (pretty much in "pre crime" fashion), so they can freak out and impress everyone around them with their power.
Personally, I think some of them are more of a danger to the people on the range, than the shooters who some deem irresponsible.
If not "needs", then at least "should be".
As far as the "last four" or so, are we to assume that your skill set and need only apply to your particular shooting discipline, and nothing more?
The reason I ask is, if you do carry a gun and have none of the other skills, how is that not dangerous and irresponsible?
OK
AK....
+1 about the should be.
The rest.......fair questions. Perhaps my wording was poor....I find that what I do provides me with related skills. I have the other skill sets to a degree that I am comfortable with.
I do not claim to be an exceptional shot with pistol, rifle, or shotgun - not at all. That being said, is usually hit what I am aiming at.
I do know that, for me, what practice I do (and I shoot two or three times a week) supports a variety of skill sets.
At the range, near my home in Sweet Valley there are often men and women who are practicing combat skills. I watch them shoot. Occasionally, I will check my self and do the same type of shooting.
Maybe they all need more practice, because I shoot as well or better at those same drills as they do.
Dont get me wrong....I am not blowing my own horn....my point is that I have found that the type of shooting that I do provides me with related skills to a quite acceptable degree. From observation, I do not see that the reverse is true for other types of training. In fact, IMHO, all of those shooters would benefit greatly if they spent more time shooting at distance, slowly and at smaller targets.
Drawing, presenting, shooting rapid fire at a target three yards away does nothing to prepare me for shooting at a slow fire bullseye that is 50 yards away. Since I am more apt to be shooting at that bullseye than be in a three yard encounter, I practice for what I am most apt to be doing. I know that I can hit the three yard target quickly and successively if I need to.
None of the above is meant critically....i write this disclaimer because it is so often difficult to detect tone in internet posts.
Pete
AK....
+1 about the should be.
The rest.......fair questions. Perhaps my wording was poor....I find that what I do provides me with related skills. I have the other skill sets to a degree that I am comfortable with.
I do not claim to be an exceptional shot with pistol, rifle, or shotgun - not at all. That being said, is usually hit what I am aiming at.
I do know that, for me, what practice I do (and I shoot two or three times a week) supports a variety of skill sets.
At the range, near my home in Sweet Valley there are often men and women who are practicing combat skills. I watch them shoot. Occasionally, I will check my self and do the same type of shooting.
Maybe they all need more practice, because I shoot as well or better at those same drills as they do.
Dont get me wrong....I am not blowing my own horn....my point is that I have found that the type of shooting that I do provides me with related skills to a quite acceptable degree. From observation, I do not see that the reverse is true for other types of training. In fact, IMHO, all of those shooters would benefit greatly if they spent more time shooting at distance, slowly and at smaller targets.
Drawing, presenting, shooting rapid fire at a target three yards away does nothing to prepare me for shooting at a slow fire bullseye that is 50 yards away. Since I am more apt to be shooting at that bullseye than be in a three yard encounter, I practice for what I am most apt to be doing. I know that I can hit the three yard target quickly and successively if I need to.
None of the above is meant critically....i write this disclaimer because it is so often difficult to detect tone in internet posts.
Pete
No argument there. The basics are the "base". Without those, trying to do anything else will likely give mediocre, if not poor results.
One thing great about the shooting community is, there are so many different areas within it, that you can spend your whole life wandering through and trying to learn the different disciplines (as well as driving yourself crazy and emptying your wallet.
). In all of them, those "basics" carry through, and you pretty much need that base ingrained, no matter which direction you go. Each way you go, you learn some more, and sometimes there are conflicts in older doctrine, but that too is a learning experience.