Getting spoiled. How do truly good shooters deal with this?

[Nushif]

I have been doing a lot of dry firing with my 1911 as of late and have reached the point where my sights don't visibly move at all when the hammer falls. There's some more polish to be done for sure, but that's not the point of this thread.
I then decided to dry fire my Norinco 213 that I previously could do that with as well and I no longer could. It's not that the rigger is bad on the Norinco at all. It is only heavier. It has slightly more take up, but breaks very clean and crisp as well.

Now, here's my question. We see some people especially those of us giving reviews claiming things like "bad trigger" and while I'm sure it exists, I am very seriously starting to think a lot of the "bad trigger" phenomenon is specialization.

I'd like to be a good all around shooter, and I figure anyone who calls themselves a good shooter should at least be passable with pretty much any gun handed to them, since most of them use the same skillset, but in my shooting adventures I've seen people who call themselves very good shooters perform rather well on one platform but be utterly unable (and I don't mean their groups open up) to shoot well with anything that isn't a race gun in whatever category gun they choose.

I figure it might be me, but is it an unreasonable expectation that a good shooter at least be able to moderately shoot any handgun? Especially when it comes to people we rely on for their valued opinions, isn't specialization a very severe weakness?

What's your thoughts on the subject?

 

[OldCavSoldier]

I'd say that if you've been shooting for a few years and have been fortunate to have access to and shoot several different types and makes of handguns, yes, you should be able to perform moderately well with any handgun. The *basic* fundamentals remain the same whether you are touching off a Colt Gold Cup National Match or an S&W snubbie.

 

[9mmepiphany]

It isn't an unreasonable expectation...but it is about the shooter and their ability to Change Speed

All you have to do is look a last season's Top Shot to see World Class shooters unable to adapt to more common guns...while a generalist (Jay Lim) shooter, with horrible speed technique, but good fundamentals was able to shoot anything well.

It has been my experience that shooting a 1911 extensively is generally detrimental to good fundamental shooting. Unless the shooter is very disciplined, they'll use to shorter release to cheat on trigger management. My experience has been that the ability to smoothly manage a DA trigger is the best teaching toll to develop trigger control in anything other than pure target shooting

 

[SwampWolf]

Now, here's my question. We see some people especially those of us giving reviews claiming things like "bad trigger" and while I'm sure it exists, I am very seriously starting to think a lot of the "bad trigger" phenomenon is specialization.
I'd like to be a good all around shooter, and I figure anyone who calls themselves a good shooter should at least be passable with pretty much any gun handed to them, since most of them use the same skillset, but in my shooting adventures I've seen people who call themselves very good shooters perform rather well on one platform but be utterly unable (and I don't mean their groups open up) to shoot well with anything that isn't a race gun in whatever category gun they choose.

You will quickly be able to ascertain what constitutes a really good trigger from one that's not so good when you're trying to put a bullet in the x-ring of a bullseye, fifty yards distant, firing a pistol with one hand. This is a standard course of fire during the slow-fire stage of a Bullseye match. Add a little wind to the mix and that mediocre trigger will fail you completely.

But, when you wonder if undue focus on "specialization" (like Bullseye shooting) detracts from becoming a "good all around shooter" (if I'm understanding your question correctly), I'll make this point: I became involved in competitive Bullseye shooting while serving in the military in the early sixties. A few years later, I became a le officer and spent the next 26 years qualifying in bi-annual training shooting protocols and participating in regular "combat" orientated course of fires, both in my official capacity and as a "civilian". What I came to understand is that the required "building blocks" for accurate shooting of any type (sight alignment, trigger pull, proper breathing technique, follow-through, appropriate stance, etc.) that Bullseye shooting forced me to adopt if I was to enjoy any success as a Bullseye shooter served me well in all of my other shooting endeavors. Adjustments (sometimes major) were needed on occasion, of course, but the fundamentals of accurate shooting were never compromised.

I would argue that a person might never become a "good all around shooter" if he/she doesn't first become a good "specialized" shooter.

 

[Nushif]

Is it bad if I drift offtopic on my own thread, but I've always wondered at this:

x-ring of a bullseye, fifty yards distant

I can't even *see* the thing. With glasses corrected to normal vision.

As for the content of your post, I would challenge (maybe the wrong word) your assertion in analyzing how much of the good shooting from a bullseye match really translates into anything other than a bullseye match.

What you listed, like sight alignment, trigger pull, breathing, stance and follow through are what I would consider standard techniques for all long distance handgun shooting, not necessarily a "bullseye only" technique.
From what I gather (seeing as I've only ever talked to someone who's shot bullseye) one specific skill is the rather measured pace of shooting that also distinguishes a really good bullseye shooter from a normal one. How did for instance this translate into a combat handgun course? (or however they're called)

 

[rellascout]

Take my thoughts with a grain of salt. I do not consider myself a "good all around shooter" and I am certainly not a "specialized shooter". I am on a good day a decent shot at the ranges and platforms I practice on.

I shoot very little beyond 15 yards. I stretch to 25 yards for fun but it is not my focus and my targets reflect that. Its not that I could not train to improve those groups but I find shorter distances more enjoyable and controllable for me.

These days I shoot a lot of more SA than DA/SA. I shoot a lot of 1911 and BHP. These guns fit me well and I enjoy shooting them. Do they spoil me I guess somewhat. I am used to the crisp action of these guns. I like their reset points and I have built up enough muscle memory to be able to find my groove with them consistently. I personally feel I shoot best with them and for the most part my targets reflect that.

I can however shoot my Kahr CW9 well enough at 10 yards that I am comfortable carrying it. I can still pick up my Sig P228 and shoot it in DA or SA mode well out to 25. I can keep my S&W 642 where I need it to be within 10 yards. I cut my teeth and learned to shoot on Sigs like the P228. I have sort of moved away from them but I still shoot them here and there.

On these "other" platforms I find I have to concentrate a bit more. The DA shot on my Sig or CZ P01 or the DAO on the Kahr require more thought because there is less muscle memory. I have to wait a bit for the trigger. I especially find this true on the Kahr. It is as much a mental thing as it is a physical one. I can empty the mag from the Kahr just about as fast, in real time, as the BHP but mentally it seems longer.

To me a lot is determined by what criteria you are using to define things like "good all around shooter". Again I do not consider myself a "good all around shooter" I am what I would consider a passable/decent shooter but only at defense ranges. I do however feel that at self defense ranges within 15 yards I can "moderately shoot any handgun" and that is good enough for me.

 

[chhodge69]

I find that dry fire practice with a heavy double action trigger improves my stability with all my guns.

 

[toivo]

x-ring of a bullseye, fifty yards distant

I can't even *see* the thing. With glasses corrected to normal vision.

But you can see the big black blob that it's right in the middle of, and that's what counts.

 

[Searcher4851]

What you listed, like sight alignment, trigger pull, breathing, stance and follow through are what I would consider standard techniques for all long distance handgun shooting, not necessarily a "bullseye only" technique.

Swampwolf didn't say bullseye was the ONLY way, he just said that bullseye was where HE learned the basic techniques. I tend to agree with him that bullseye IS a very good place to learn. A flnch at 50 yards shows up much better than a flinch at 7 yards. I might also agree that specialization in a particular style may help to ingrain the fundamentals, rather than constantly changing styles while learning the basics, whether it's in bullseye or whatever.

 

[rellascout]

I might also agree that specialization in a particular style may help to ingrain the fundamentals, rather than constantly changing styles while learning the basics, whether it's in bullseye or whatever.

I disagree. Good general trigger control fundamentals built on shooting say a DA Revolver in 22lr is a better starting point that shooting a highly specialize disciple like bulleye shooting. A solid foundation is necessary to move on specialization. IMHO. Without that you are never going to reach any level of proficiency.

In order to even hit the target at 50 yards you will need to already have developed trigger control. Take someone to the range who has never shot a gun. Put the target at 25 yards and hand them a bullseye pistol. How many of the first 50 shots are even going to hit paper?

I see it at the range almost everytime I go. Someone rolls their target out to 25 yards and there is no "group" to speak of. There are a few random holes in the target which seem to have zero connection to each other. LOL

 

[Nushif]

In order to even hit the target at 50 yards you will need to already have developed trigger control.

This is very true. I was at the range one day and someone rolled up in the lane next to me with his .380 Bodyguard. He said he had just bought it and wanted to see how he could do with it.

Much to my puzzlement he put the target out to max distance, engaged the laser and proceeded to shoot at the wall repeatedly, since he couldn't even hold the gun straight without firing it at that distance. (That little red dot was all over the place) I managed hitting the paper afterwards using both hands, a solid stance and ignoring the laser ... but when I talk about these habits in overspecialization that's what I am talking about.

I mention specifically bullseye here, or rather I'm glad it was brought up, not because I dislike it, but because the idea of bullseye shooting seems rather counterintuitive to everything the pistol "was designed" to do. There are, of course several sports that do use the oddball tool for the job, for instance grinding down a rail on skis ...
(Now, it can be argued a pistol is designed to do whatever it was, such as hitting bullseyes at 50 yards, being able to be dropped from a helicopter or winning speed steel matches. I will argue though, that while I think it is great and unique for a pistol and a shooter to be able to do that the long gun was specifically designed to address this issue of range.)

Speaking though of the gun writers, review gurus and the like, I did mention earlier this constant "bad trigger" argument when reviewing anything other than a gun of their choice.
I understand the 1911 is a great design. Not to pick on you dedicated 1911 shooters (I am attempting to avoid getting sucked into this 1911 thing myself here) who review tons of different guns, but the Gold Cup trigger is *not* the standard by which all should be judged. Last I checked nobody compared an SUVs top speed to that of a rocket powered dragster. Sorry to pick on the 1911 here folks, but they're arguably the most guilty of the "CRAP TRIGGER" term. On the other hand comparing said Gold Cup to a stock Glock because it wouldn't function after they dragged it down a gravel road for twenty miles and then calling it "UNRELIABLE" is just as ridiculous.

Any thoughts on this?

 

[RTR_RTR]

I'm interested in how the hell people see the targets well enough to shoot at them so far out as well. Exercise in futility for me

 

[DoomGoober]

It doesn't take much imagination to think up a firearm with perfect trigger control: Put it on a heavy tripod and put a remote electronic trigger onto it. Bam trigger control is not an issue.

But firearms are philosophically built as much around shooting as NOT shooting. Is the trigger so light that you'll shoot when you don't mean to? Does the trigger mechanism work all the time? Does it work when dirty? Is it light enough to carry? Will it fit in different sized hands? Etc. etc.

What I'm saying is, get used to whatever gun you'll have whenever you'll need it. If you're going to enter Top Shot or join a resistance group that fires random captured weapons, you better practice on everything. If you always carry your 1911 and plan on using it for self defense, get good at that. But if you enjoy shooting the Norinco (or sometimes only have that), why not get good at that too just for fun?

Learn to shoot whatever gun you'll have, for whatever it is you'll need. The best gun to learn to shoot is the one you'll have in your hand when you need it.

 

[rellascout]

I understand the 1911 is a great design. Not to pick on you dedicated 1911 shooters (I am attempting to avoid getting sucked into this 1911 thing myself here) who review tons of different guns, but the Gold Cup trigger is *not* the standard by which all should be judged. Last I checked nobody compared an SUVs top speed to that of a rocket powered dragster. Sorry to pick on the 1911 here folks, but they're arguably the most guilty of the "CRAP TRIGGER" term. On the other hand comparing said Gold Cup to a stock Glock because it wouldn't function after they dragged it down a gravel road for twenty miles and then calling it "UNRELIABLE" is just as ridiculous.

For me bad triggers come in a few different forms.

• Inconsistent breaking point. Some guns do not break at the same point every time.
• Overly and unnecessarily heavy pull. Some pulls are just too heavy the old Sigma comes to mind. There was no need for it to be over 10lbs.
• Overly long trigger pull. Too me guns like the Sig P250 are too long initially as well as the reset.
• Triggers with poor designs that cause things like camming.
• Gritty Triggers that feel like you are pulling the trigger through dirt.

These are subjective criteria but IMHO the 1911 does not have any of these issues. They have a clean, light consistent trigger with a short reset. 1911 shooters get spoiled by these positive characteristics.

 

[Zerodefect]

How would i deal with it????

-melt the Norinco down, make a roller skate out of it or something.
-sell all my DA/SA guns.
-throw my Beretta M9 in the ocean.
-keep on shooting 1911's and enjoying what works.



I don't mind a Da trigger pull. As long as it isn't too long. I can keep a Kahr nice and still. But a longer Keltec or J-frame trigger is a bit tedious.

 

[basicblur]

I find that dry fire practice with a heavy double action trigger improves my stability with all my guns.

Been preaching this to folks for years-my newest dry fire practice gun of choice is a SIG SP2022 in DA, which is a 12 lb. pull. My bed gun for the last 15 years or so has been a Sigma, despite all the 'Net whining 'bout the trigger. A couple of my ARs have two stage triggers, which I don't particularly care for.

'Course, I'm a pragmatist, learned on DA revolvers, and practice like I think the weapon may be used-this means I practice using a 'controlled slap', which I'm glad to see some folks are finally starting to teach.

I think a lot of the 'Net whining/obsessing over triggers is from new shooters-mebbe those that grew up on video games (with a 3 oz. trigger)?

I'll haff to quote Ayoob on this one: A light trigger pull is, more than anything else, a crutch for bad trigger technique.

 

[Ankeny]

To me a lot is determined by what criteria you are using to define things like "good all around shooter".

My thoughts exactly. I started competing with a handgun in the early 1970's shooting PPC with a double action only revolver. I also shot the National Shooter's League and some early "action pistol" before Bianchi became involved. Back then, I couldn't for the life of me understand how anyone in their right mind could handicap themselves with a semi-auto.

Then I gave Bullseye a shot and I fell in love with the 1911. Along the way I also tried shooting those chickens, pigs, turkeys, and rams with a TC Contender...then on to "Action Shooting" ala Bianchi and NRA. Then a 5 year break before taking up USPSA/IPSC. I have been shooting IPSC for the last 10 years or so using a single stack 1911 in L10, a fat gun on an STI 2011 in Limited, a S&W 610 and a 25-2 in Revolver Division, an STI based Open blaster for racing, and both a CZ 75 and a Glock in Production. Heck, I even shot a few GSSF matches with a G17.

FWIW, becoming really good with all platforms takes a tremendous amount of time and dedication, not to mention the financial resources. Sometimes I think I could have gotten really good if I would have specialized in one discipline and with one shooting platform.

I suppose in the end each shooter has to decide what constitutes "good enough" at the game they wish to play. In the self defense arena, each person needs to decide what is important to them and how they want to pursue their goals. Everything else makes good Internet chatter, but shooting really is a very personal endeavor.

Edited to add:

A light trigger pull is, more than anything else, a crutch for bad trigger technique.

That depends on the application. In some circles, shooters would agree...in other circles, that could be the most ignorant statement ever uttered.

 

[rellascout]

I suppose in the end each shooter has to decide what constitutes "good enough" at the game they wish to play. In the self defense arena, each person needs to decide what is important to them and how they want to pursue their goals. Everything else makes good Internet chatter, but shooting really is a very personal endeavor.

Amen Brother!

 

[Nushif]

I think a lot of the 'Net whining/obsessing over triggers is from new shooters-mebbe those that grew up on video games (with a 3 oz. trigger)?

Somehow I doubt the average 1911 trigger fanatic is the demographic you describe. 8)

 

[9mmepiphany]

Overly and unnecessarily heavy pull.
Triggers with poor designs that cause things like camming.
Gritty Triggers that feel like you are pulling the trigger through dirt.


These are subjective criteria but IMHO the 1911 does not have any of these issues. They have a clean, light consistent trigger with a short reset.

I've felt many 1911 triggers that were over 8lbs and had a gritty travel as well as what felt like a speed bump just before let off. I won't swear to it, but I see to remember them as being Colts.

I've found that if you shoot enough different guns, you'll find a bad trigger in any platform

 

[9mmepiphany]

Somehow I doubt the average 1911 trigger fanatic is the demographic you describe. 8)

I think it you substitute fan for fanatic, you would be talking about a portion of the same demographic. In that portion of the populous I think the 1911 only trails the Glock in fandom

 

[9mmepiphany]

I'm interested in how the hell people see the targets well enough to shoot at them so far out as well. Exercise in futility for me

You don't have to see them well, you just have to know how they should appear. There is an old mantra in Action Pistol games where shooting quickly balances accurately, "Seeing, without Looking"...but it does come from the Olympic shooting world

 

[AK103K]

All you have to do is look a last season's Top Shot to see World Class shooters unable to adapt to more common guns...while a generalist (Jay Lim) shooter, with horrible speed technique, but good fundamentals was able to shoot anything well.

One of the gun mags a number of years back basically tried a test on this very thing. They used a "skilled" games shooter, and a "average Joe" and started with box stock guns, and moved up through guns of varying "custom accents", in increments, until they hit the race guns. The results were interesting. The "skilled" shooter only seemed to hit his stride, when he got to the race gun. He really didnt do anything exceptional with anything else, where the "average Joe" had no troubles with anything handed him and they werent all that much apart shooting wise, until the race guns.

Specialists tend to be just that, specialists, and often limited to their specialty. With all the great and varying things out there, how boring.

It has been my experience that shooting a 1911 extensively is generally detrimental to good fundamental shooting.

I agree, and I was once in that very boat. Once I got over the initial learning curve of shooting DA revolvers DAO, my overall shooting improved quite a bit, as did my versatility. All of a sudden, "difficult" guns, werent difficult, or all that bad anymore.

This also crossed over into long guns when I got into HK rifles and SMG's. Once you learned the "horrible" factory HK triggers (the usual US shooter response to them) , the need for those super light and crisp "target" triggers, wasnt nearly as important, and everything else suddenly (and amazingly) became much easier to shoot well with. Still nothing wrong with light and crisp, but heavy and not so pretty are somehow not anywhere near the bother they once were.

My experience has been that the ability to smoothly manage a DA trigger is the best teaching toll to develop trigger control in anything other than pure target shooting

Absloutely! Once learned, even target shooting isnt really that much of a problem. If anything, especially with heavy recoiling guns, you tend to do better with a DA trigger than you do with SA, or at least thats been my experience. Once I let go of that SA trigger crutch and concentrated on shooting my old 4" model 29 with hot loads DAO, those chucks out there at 100 yards were in much greater peril. The kill rate increased significantly.

The hammer spur and SA notch were soon gone to boot, and I havent thumb cocked a DA revolver (or auto) since.

 

[rellascout]

I've felt many 1911 triggers that were over 8lbs and had a gritty travel as well as what felt like a speed bump just before let off. I won't swear to it, but I see to remember them as being Colts.

I've found that if you shoot enough different guns, you'll find a bad trigger in any platform

Oh there are bad triggers within 1911s... just like there are bad DA revolvers just like there are bad Sig DA/SA triggers. There are exceptions to every rule.

You are correct there is a bad apple in every bunch but there are IMHO some platforms which are simply bad apples.

 

[SwampWolf]

What you listed, like sight alignment, trigger pull, breathing, stance and follow through are what I would consider standard techniques for all long distance handgun shooting, not necessarily a "bullseye only" technique.

I never said that a good shooting technique is strictly the province of Bullseye shooters nor do I believe that only "long range" shooters benefit from adhering to the basics of the art of shooting accurately. What I am saying is that there is no shortcut to shooting well and, whether you're shooting a pistol at relatively short ranges or a rifle at relatively long ranges, you cannot ignore things like a controlled trigger squeeze or a semblance of sight alignment and expect to excel.

I referenced Bullseye shooting because I think it's a great discipline in getting the fundamentals right from the get-go. Slowing things down allows for a studied assessment of what you're doing wrong and a plan for correcting faults as well as an affirmation of what you're doing right and a plan for replicating good methods. Bullseye, like so many other contrived shooting endeavors, is a game and it doesn't adequately address the needs of people who are training to shoot well for when the time comes that they must shoot "for keeps." But it does focus on the basic elements of accurate shooting that must be attained and maintained if the bullet is expected to hit the target on a consistent basis. These elements may have to be "hurried up" a bit to conform to a fast-paced shooting scenario but they are still present, if only in the most rudimentary form. And they have to be learned before they can be used.

In terms of shooting well with a poor trigger, well, yeah, I can get by with a creepy, stagy trigger and if I practice often enough with it, well, you can get used to hanging if you hang long enough. But why struggle with a bad trigger pull when there are so many good ones to choose from? I'm not debating the merits of da pulls vs sa pulls because I don't think there are any right or wrong answers on this issue, but I sometimes think more than a few people defend bad trigger pulls because their gun of choice (for otherwise good reasons) is afflicted with one by its very design...