Input requested on an article I wrote . . .

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
16
Location
Wilmington, NC USA
I just wrote an article about diagnosing problems in handgun shooting, aimed (ha!) at folks who either carry concealed or are preparing to do so. You can read it here:

http://www.usacarry.com/diagnosing-shooting-problems/

I'm only one person, with limited experience and a single point of view. Toward that end, I'm posting this here in the hopes that y'all will be kind enough to read it and offer some feedback.

I hope you find it both enjoyable and useful. Thanks in advance!
 
I found it well written and informative. I'm going to share that link with some newer shooters and hopefully they will benefit from it.

Something I always notice when looking at those type of charts is they never mention that for it to be accurate you have to have an accurate round for the particular weapon being fired. If you have a load that shoots 2" high and left(as I just had doing load development) that chart won't help much. Something to think about.
 
Other than you show a left handed trigger finger and a right handed chart, it's a good basic introduction to improving one's handgun accuracy.
 
That chart was developed for bullseye shooters using one hand. It's not really relevant for 95+% of shooters. It's a source of way more confusion than help today.
 
I liked it as a basic, quick introduction.

I think you could do a entire series of articles directed at new shooters.

If you do decide to do that, I think another article you might consider talking about some other things that new shooters need to know. We get a large number of threads on here by first timers asking 'what is the best gun', 'what is the most accurate gun', 'what can I do to my new gun to make it shoot better', etc. I understand the buy right, buy once concept. However it has limits, what is perfect for you may not be perfect for me. Buying what is right for you is more important and most anything else.

Another thing, most shooters can not shoot to the capabilities of their stock gun. Many think that a match grade barrel, hand-loaded target ammo, etc will automatically shrink their groups. So after reading the internet, going to the range once and not one-holing all their shots they think there is a problem with their gun. That for the most part is incorrect. Until you can get your fundamentals down, training, practice, practice, and more practice. Tossing money at parts will generally not help. We also get those guys that will 'fix it until it is broke' by adding all the must have do-dads and gizmos to their guns. (Thank goodness that the days of the 70's and 80's when the first stop after buying a new Colt 1911 was the gunsmith shop to make it run correctly are over.)

I am sure this and a lot of other lessons could be introduced (how to buy, how to store safety, range safety and etiquette, legal concerns, cleaning and protecting the firearm, ammo choices, sights/lasers/flashlights/etc., wading through the gun store guys BS and biases, among others) to the public in small well written articles, like the one you wrote above, that could be extremely helpful.


.
 
I, for one, have never liked that chart. My observation is that many shooters shoot very good groups and try to correct by that chart. My contention is that if you are shooting good groups, you're not doing anything wrong, adjust your sights.

Bob Wright
 
Yep.

Here's what's really required to hit something accurately with a handgun: 1. Align the sights with the target (assuming they are properly zeroed). 2. Pull the trigger straight to the rear without losing #1. That's it. That's the whole list.

The biggest and most common problem, by far (running away and over the horizon), for new/struggling pistol shooters is blinking. They blink/flinch before the gun goes off. So they cannot see that they are shoving the gun around in anticipation of recoil (thereby messing up #1) or have a lot of extraneous/asymetric inputs in their trigger pull that move the sights out of alignment (thereby failing at #2 causing them to fail at #1 at the moment of truth).

Until shooters can see their sights when the gun goes off, no chart in the world can help them. And once they can see their sights, they won't need a chart for help.

Short version: Learn to read your sights, not a stupid chart.
 
The article is a nice introduction but really only deals with generalities and raises more questions than it answers. It seems to imply that practice will improve ones ability to shoot well, but doesn't touch on the fact that only practice of correct techniques will produce improvement...otherwise you are just practicing to ingrain bad habits.

The article's greatest weakness is the inclusion of the pie chart. Besides having long ago been proven non-applicable to two-handed shooting, since it was meant to diagnose problems with one handed shooting, it weakens your credibility among anyone reading the article who is a serious shooter.

If I happened to glance at the article and saw that chart, I wouldn't bother to even skim the article
 
Ah yes - the chart.

You have a well-written article, but I failed to see any information about the chart, with NO reference to its actual validity as a legitimate handgun shooting diagnostic tool. I have read somewhere before on the internet (so you know it must be true) that chart only applies to one-handed bullseye shooting. It just seems unproductive for an instructional writer to feature something like that chart without saying anything about its origin or including any information or analysis of its value. I have what could well be an equally 'legitimate' chart for you to use in the next article - with no discussion or analysis of the content mine might be more useful:

Analysis01.jpg
 
Last edited:
I am not a fan of that chart, but that subject has been well covered, so I won't say any more about it. I will say that it is a pretty tough crowd here, but at least they are honest.

So let's talk about the parts I liked. Your writing style is clear and readable. And the actual body of the article is more interesting than the chart. I would summarize the themes as: put ego aside, break down the problem, make a plan, and practice effectively. You made these points clearly, but I actually would have been willing to read a little more about any of these areas. I felt like these subjects were your real expertise, and that you might have more to say. Also, stories about actual training experiences make these points relatable.

I have thought quite a lot about some similar themes, and I have written a bit about them. If you are interested to see some articles I have written, my blog is in my sig.
 
I tend to agree with the others that the chart gets kinda confusing. I adamantly agree with the idea that small consistent groups means your doing it "right" and the only adjustment needed is in POA/POI. The big problem I see is in the design of a lot of the DA pocket pistols with long heavy triggers. You put a lot of force on the gun to make it work, and with tiny poor sights the lock time allows for a lot of motion. When all that built in error comes together the truth is that there's no way to know where that gun is going to be pointed when the bullets leaves the barrel. In general you control left and right with finger placement on the trigger. With guns with fixed sights your only adjustment is in finger placement.
 
I also agree that it is a decent intro to basic shooting for the newbies. My only "complaint" is the typos/grammar in an article that is written by a "professional" writer.

e.g.
A wise older shooter I once knew said that if you’re not keep track of what you’re doing and how it’s working then your playing, not training.

2 errors in this one sentence. Just pointing out you need to proof read a bit better.
 
I also agree that it is a decent intro to basic shooting for the newbies. My only "complaint" is the typos/grammar in an article that is written by a "professional" writer.

e.g.
A wise older shooter I once knew said that if you’re not keep track of what you’re doing and how it’s working then your playing, not training.

2 errors in this one sentence. Just pointing out you need to proof read a bit better.
I wasn't going to point it out, hoping that his editor would likely catch it...but there are at least 3 errors, 4 if you're referring to incidents of errors as opposed to types of errors.
 
BobWright said:
I, for one, have never liked that chart. My observation is that many shooters shoot very good groups and try to correct by that chart. My contention is that if you are shooting good groups, you're not doing anything wrong, adjust your sights.
Bob Wright
I didn't read the article, but I am most familiar with the chart. It was developed for one-handed bullseye type shooting, by the way.

The biggest single problem with 'the chart' is no one ever explains how to tell between 'heeling', 'bucking', 'flinching' and so on and the sights being considerably off. There is a fairly quick way to tell from the shot groups.

Shot groups out of place due to the sights being wrong always are fairly 'round' in shape. Anticipating, heeling, bucking and closing one's eyes result in an oval shaped shot group. That long oval shape may be up and down, left and right or usually diagonal.

If the group is circular and tight, the shooter is doing every thing right and simply needs the sight setting correct. (Which can be done on pistols with 'fixed' sights with some care.) A group circular and loose means the shooter has the right idea, but isn't holding and squeezing very well yet. They need more dry fire and shooting time.

A group that centers on the center of the mark, but runs high right to low left has sights that are well adjusted (probably) and a shooter that is breaking his (right handed) wrist low and left, usually tensing the entire hand when shooting.

Don't bother asking how I know this.
 
I won't stray into the debate over the validity of the chart - as that wasn't the OP's material, nor is that the point of his article.

Please don't take personal offense from this - especially since you effectively waive your right to an ego by askingfor feedback - but if I'm honest, this is the kind of article which I would say is the problem with the internet - limited experience and expertise, yielding slim to no actual aide or instruction in the subject matter it's trying to convey. After almost 20yrs as a handgun instructor, developing coaching plans and training materials to present this very topic, I can't see anything of substantive value in your article to help a shooter rectify a technique problem. Largely, you could replace the subject matter with almost any physical activity and the troubleshooting process would be the same - so the article isn't about shooting, it's a boiler plate process for any activity. "identify your problem, determine an appropriate solution, practice, measure your progress, and don't be too hard on yourself - plus by the way, here's a really old handgun symptoms chart..." - that's what I read out of the article. Anyone can get published online these days, and having only read this singular sample of your work, I don't judge the entirety of your knowledge base or your body of work, but any time I have produced that kind of article, I ask myself - "will the target reader be more knowledgeable in the subject matter for having read it? Will this help solve their problem?" Envisioning myself in the shoes of so many students I've helped through specific fundamental technique issues over the years, there aren't any answers in the article beyond the (obviously controversial) handgun errors chart which has been around for ages.

Beyond the lack of substance, there were multiple grammatical errors which any common word processing program should have caught, but since yours didn't, it distracts the reader from the subject matter by forcing them to decide what you MEANT to say, instead of reading what you said.

Again, I really don't mean this as a personal insult. If you posted here asking for feedback not actually wanting it, but as a veiled attempt to advertise your article, then that's a new ball of wax unto itself. But you asked for feedback, so I will hope you take my comments as constructive criticism, even though my honest feedback isn't positive - I don't think reading this article would help a struggling handgunner solve their issue, which was the point in writing it, yes?

There are LOTS of peer-review websites out there where other professional writers will help you develop your writing technique and help drive a more productive and successful product. It's in these arenas where the bloggers get separated from the writers - and not all of them are as callus as I, so consider that good news!
 
Varminterror nailed it.

I was very surprised to scroll past the chart and see the conclusion looming just a few sentences away. I thought you were just getting started.

It read more like a a rough draft article outline than an article itself. No reason you can't use it as such and flesh it out into something entertaining and useful. But as it sits it doesn't do much but underscore the obvious.
 
I think any article on handgun shooting should discuss hand/gun fit right at the beginning because having a gun that's either too big or too small is a problem that's really only fixed by replacing the gun with one that fits properly. I think this is an especially important point now that there are so many tiny, concealment guns available, as well as more smaller-handed female shooters that may be trying to shoot full-sized handguns.
 
After reading it, I felt like it was too short. I understand it says a quick guide, but it provided too little info to be considered "a guide."

The basic point I got out of the article was, "welcome to shooting, if you can't hit a bullseye, here's a chart, keep practicing and don't be too hard on yourself."

I would've liked to see more specific info, bullet selection, gun selection, training (aspects like draw, trigger....etc.) I would rather read an article 10 times the size of that with better material than a short, blanket article.
 
I guess the OP didn't really want our criticism. He hasn't been back since he posted his article. I guess he wanted hits more than actual thoughts by us?
 
If you posted here asking for feedback not actually wanting it, but as a veiled attempt to advertise your article, then that's a new ball of wax unto itself.

I guess the OP didn't really want our criticism. He hasn't been back since he posted his article. I guess he wanted hits more than actual thoughts by us?

Most of the time when I see threads asking folks to review videos or articles, it's almost universally a lie - they're looking for hits. If they wanted peer-review, they'd ask before publication, not after (which folks just don't do on forums, for many reasons).

Open Carry Jenkins has been on THR and posting since he opened this thread, just has been posting in other threads. Not sure why he hasn't decided to comment back on the feedback he has received in this thread - other than it's likely uncomfortable to hear so much bad response. Some folks I know in media operate on a steroid version of, "listen to your fans, not your critics," so much they stave themselves away from any negative reviews. Maybe that's what he's doing?

As someone who has done some outdoor/hunting and sports writing, contract and freelance, it does frustrate me to see folks make a living with relatively low quality product. But you see it all the time - digital publishing is virtually free, and websites starve for content, so it's very easy to get jobs if you're willing to work cheap, even if you don't have much experience. Blogs on "from the couch to my first marathon" get more traffic than blogs by professional runners, and people are content to try terrible recipes time and time again from Pintrest before they ever buy a cookbook on a shelf - the whole consumer appetite and expectation for expertise in publishing seems upside down compared to how most of us were raised.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top