What kind of dryfire practice do you do?

[Zak Smith]

BVH,

"Frontsight-Press" is a red herring you've brought up. Nobody including myself, Ankeny, or Jeeper are advocating it.

 

[bradvanhorn]

"Frontsight-Press" is a red herring you've brought up. Nobody including myself, Ankeny, or Jeeper are advocating it.

We are talking about handgun shooting technique, yes? And we are talking about what the "top pro's" are using, right? Maybe our definitions of FSP are different, and maybe not; as far as concept of technique, I think we are talking about the same thing. Also, I'm not redirecting the discussion, Ankeny tossed out the "what the top pro's are teaching" reference and I countered with guys who are just as good but shoot using different technique.


Speaking of red herrings...

Re: your comments about dry firing rifles. If you're dry firing a rifle for 17 years and not learning anything from it, you're not thinking about it right.

I've been looking at all my posts which precede this comment (after all, you told me reading is fundamental), and I have yet to find a reference I made to rifles; we were talking about pistols (per the original post), and I certainly hope you know the difference between the two.

 

[OF]

Ankeny tossed out the "what the top pro's are teaching" reference and I countered with guys who are just as good but shoot using different technique.

The people you mentioned use precisely the techniques that are being discussed. You won't find a laser pointer in Sevigny's barrel, I guarantee it. Dryfire practice for Leatham isn't all about overcoming flinch and muscle memory. It's full-on training and practice, exercising damn near every single aspect of high-speed accurate pistol shooting. If you want to see what dryfire practice really can accomplish, you need look no further than Tatsuyo Sakai.

From reading this thread, it would seem to me that what we have here is a failure to communicate.

The point is that if you want to get the most from your dryfire practice you need to ditch the laser. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. It doesn't "work for some people" it's keeping you from realizing the full potential of dryfire practice. Advocating a laser-pointer in the barrel seems to work for you because, per your own admission, your dryfire practice is very narrowly focused and in one aspect has produced zero results for you in 17 years of trying. Your technique is lacking, not your equipment.

Steve Anderson and Brian Enos have advanced the concept of dryfire into the stratosphere from where it was just a couple years ago. If you aren't well versed on the state-of-the-art in dryfire technique, what they are teaching and expanding on, you really don't understand what is going on. And from that, have no standing to comment on whether or not a laser-pointer is appropriate or not.

I'm not trying to be unnecessarily condescending, but you seem to be having no trouble dismissing the comments of people on here that are as plugged into what is humanly possible with a handgun as just about any you'll ever meet.

If you really want to explore what this laser-pointer can or cannot offer in terms of dryfire and its place in high-speed pistol shooting, you really, seriously, need to head over to the forums at brianenos.com and discuss it. You will not find a more serious collection of the fastest pistol shooters on earth anywhere else on the web.

And as far as the 'agree to disagree' truce, these threads are about more than just the people involved in the discussion, there are many many people that read these discussions, and we're really talking to them. It's obvious you think you've got this all covered, and that's fine. I just hope we can enourage anyone reading that is thinking about seriously working with dryfire to look critically on this laser nonsense and get educated on what is, really, the state-of-the-art in dryfire training doctrine.

andersonshooting.com is the place to start, and brianenos.com is the place to finish.

- Gabe

 

[Zak Smith]

re: 17 years and rifles. You're right. Mea culpa. Maybe I should rephrase: if you're dry-firing for 17 years and not learning anything...

"Frontsight-Press" is a red herring you've brought up. Nobody including myself, Ankeny, or Jeeper are advocating it.

We are talking about handgun shooting technique, yes? And we are talking about what the "top pro's" are using, right? Maybe our definitions of FSP are different, and maybe not; as far as concept of technique, I think we are talking about the same thing.

Nobody mentioned FSP until you brought it up. Here's what the rest of us have been saying:

Dry fire is mainly about target acquisition and then transition once the aceptable sight picture is reached.

Jeeper pretty much nailed it. In dry fire, I always look for that Kodak moment, perfect sight picture and good sight alignment. I use dry fire to train my vision. I get a ton of feed back from the sights in dry fire, including grip information, how the gun is being presented, natural point of aim, biomechanical awareness of the relationship of the bore to the target face, and so on.

When I shoot I use several different sight focal points ranging from a target focus to a hard front sight focus. Of course, my index was developed using the sights.

Calling shots is about observing the sight picture as the shot breaks, which means you know without target confirmation where the bullet goes (except for environmental changes like wind for long range rifle shooting). This works when you're doing practical shooting (eg, IPSC/3Gun) where you might or might not be focusing on the sights, and precision rifle or High-Power, where you will have an different optical arrangement and focus.

Sure-- you can use your "index" instead of using a sight focus. This will be the fastest way to shoot some types of targets.

FSP implies a type of focus, where focus is both an intensifying of mental awareness and physical optical focus. FSP is one type of focus to achieve an acceptible sight-target relationship (or think bore-target relationship) which may be optimal for certain target/accuracy types. Ankeny aluded to some other methods or inputs when he said, "how the gun is being presented, natural point of aim, biomechanical awareness of the relationship of the bore to the target face, and so on".

The type of focus used for any particular target does not necessarily determine what you physically see, but what you are mentally most aware of. This is why it is possible to index on a target with a target focus yet observe where the shot breaks in your peripherally-aware vision or through kinesthetic/biomechanical awareness.

-z

 

[bradvanhorn]

From reading this thread, it would seem to me that what we have here is a failure to communicate.

Agreed.

Shoot well.

 

[Jon Coppenbarger]

Shows you how little I know about what you were talking about. When you said laser for dryfire practice I automaticly thought about beam hit and the others.
You know the one that when you pull the trigger it registers on the target where the shot hit. Hook some of them up to CPU's and track everything from before to after the shot.
I get it now. Sorry I went off into rifle stuff.
Would like to try handguns some day but man my sport is hard enough and I do not think I would live long enough to get good at handguns. Plus got allot of things I still want to do with rifles.

I went out and watched a couple of those idpa matches and they looked fun but that is something that I may try some day but not for awhile anyway.
I can just see another hobby to spend money on. Dang.

jon

 

[bradvanhorn]

Shows you how little I know about what you were talking about. When you said laser for dryfire practice I automaticly thought about beam hit and the others. You know the one that when you pull the trigger it registers on the target where the shot hit.

No worries mate; despite my "huffiness" (I like making up new words) the discussion is all good. We have a system like that in the Marine Corps, known as the ISMT (Indoor Simulated Marksmanship Trainer). The ISMT is a very good tool for practicing (when it works ); much better than drills on the "snap-in" barrel in my opinion .

 

[Jeeper]

Jon

If you are into rifle stuff then any book by G David Tubb is where to begin if you havent already read his stuff. He talks a lot about training.

I can see the use of a laser in acquiring a NPA(Natural point of Aim).

I tried to find the "beating a dead horse" smiley but I couldnt.

 

[Jon Coppenbarger]

I read parts of his first book as Steve Smith has it and I read most of it.
Not much to disagree with his way of things and he has proven it time and time again.
Have not read his new book . The one that came out a few years ago. I might switch to bolt guns in a few years (for long range anyways) and will go back and review his and a few others.
All books like his and others offer a great deal of info. I find I like to cycle threw the books ever year or so. I feel as you grow in the sport things become more clearer and you pick up more things from them. A example would be that you read and kinda pass over the things you already think you know fairly quickly. Then the things you are working on are a great intrest and you read with the goal of learning what you are working on and maybe a few things you pick up to try.
The big thing I find by going back after around a year or so is you see something that hits you like a ton of bricks. You might of read it like 4 or 5 times before but it did not mean anything to you at that time. But now it is like a light coming on! It is good to re-read them over and over.
But I like to read allot of them. Not to much right now that the season has started.
I pretty much have my prone and sitting positions down to exactly what I like. Where it is fun is the off hand. I do have my main position to what I like and I have my windy day position if it is real bad. The thing that is hard for me is adjusting my position for certain ranges. Targets that are high are not a problem or ones that are even with me but those ones down hill give me fits. Can not practice on them till the match. I still do ok at that one range but it took me like 3 years to realize what the problem was.
The thing that all books or any book that I have read on shooting does not cover the mental game. The only book that helps but reading it I had a problem asorbing it was Lanny's book.
I knew it was what I needed to pursue but the book did not cut it. Do have the tapes on mental management and the 7 hours or so of somebody talking about it was a real awakening. That is what I have worked on all winter is my mental approch to my shooting. That is why I shoot all those practice shots in my head every day. I do not take a bad shot in my head and I work on getting that perfect mental focus when I get ready to shoot. Now it may take me a few months after I start to start to get cleans again on a regular basis but that is because of my timeing and breathing and my need to slow down.

 

[Ankeny]

Front sight press? I can barely see the front sight and I slap the trigger. Good grief.

 

[Jeeper]

Jon,

I liked Lanny's book OK but I really really liked "golf is not a game of perfect" and "the perfect games of tennis". Those two really clicked in my mind more than any others. The tennis one is my favorite. I sat down and started reading it one afternoon and didnt stop until I was done(late night) because I was so into it. I highly recommend both.

 

[Island Beretta]

i am back...i see the party got very busy whilst I was away..

a coupla things:

1. This is a statement from Michael Plaxco overheard sometime ago:

Imperfect practice gives imperfect results.. be careful what you are teaching yourself to do.....

2. I see those stats with Daniel, Dave and DR so often now over the different internet forums I have started to wonder what the point is????

3. As Brian Enos would say 'don't become too results-oriented'..it is not where the shot hits that matters, it is doing what is necessary to ensure that the shot hits wherever you want it to..whenever you want it to..

4. Target focus is good but not for every type of shooting challenge..don't limit yourself..the good shooter is the one who can address certain challenges, the great shooter is the one who can address any challenges..

 

[bradvanhorn]

Imperfect practice gives imperfect results.. be careful what you are teaching yourself to do...

Agreed. This is why I think the laser is a helpful tool. It is not the only tool however, and there is obviously a great deal of disagreement here over it's application. I'll add only this - try something new once in a while; keep it if it works.

I see those stats with Daniel, Dave and DR so often now over the different internet forums I have started to wonder what the point is????

The point is these guys (Daniel, DR and Rick for sure; Dave I'll consider putting a buck on it) do not train and perform the very same techniques as the other successful [professional] shooters, and yet they are getting results that are just as good. This is not proof (nor is it an attempt to prove) that one way is right and another way is wrong, but that one technique is just as good as another if you are willing to consider alternatives.

...it is not where the shot hits that matters, it is doing what is necessary to ensure that the shot hits wherever you want it to... whenever you want it to...

Agreed. Though in my mind the later is already implied by the former, so making the distinction is unnecessary. Regardless, how you accomplish this is almost certainly different depending on which techniques you use and practice. Again, it is not about right vs. wrong...




As I mentioned above, try something new once in a while; keep what works. Shoot well.

 

[Zak Smith]

"Let's all get a long / Agree to disagree" is a cop-out often used when an argument has been soundly refuted and its proponent won't admit defeat.

GRD's post says all that needed to be said about dryfire.

 

[Control Group]

OK, I'm one of the aforementioned "many many people" who read this forum, and I'm a novice - I haven't even managed to get over the hump of beginning to shoot competitively (though I will eventually, honest!).

With that said - to me, the laser-in-the-barrel device sounds like a good idea, and I kind of want one. Before anyone jumps down my throat or uses me for justification (yeah, right), let me explain.

Some people have said that the sights after the trigger pull tell you everything you need to know about the hypothetical shot. This may be true, but only if you know how to read them! I do plenty of dry fire practice, but all I can tell is if I've twitched the gun during my trigger pull (and I probably did). This is good information, of course, but I have no idea where an actual round would have gone. None. The key here is that I'm unsure of exactly what my sight picture means: I don't have enough experience to read it accurately, and certainly not enough to have confidence in my ability to read it accurately. A device which gave me feedback telling me whether the sight picture I had is the sight picture I wanted would be ideal.

I have to admit, I don't see how getting feedback on exactly what just happened can be a bad thing. I can see how lots of people would find the laser useless, but not how it is actually harmful. I mean, if getting feedback on your shot leads to bad habits, then that implies that actually shooting the gun is terrible practice! This is so counterintuitive to me that I find it hard to believe.

Additionally, one point I think has been missed, is that what's good practice for the absolute best shooters in the world may not be good practice for a novice or mediocre shooter. To analogize, I love baseball, but I'm as unathletic a guy as you're going to find, and I'm certainly no pitcher. A guy like Greg Maddux spends a lot of training time working on his grip to fine-tune a curveball. I can work on my grip all I want, it won't make me a better pitcher - I need to work on being able to reliably keep the ball catchable on the other side of the plate. Training the way the pros do is a great idea if you're close to being pro-level yourself. If you're not, though, you'd be better served building up all the basic skills they take for granted first.

 

[bradvanhorn]

I don't think your dilemma is all that unusual. Frankly I felt I was in a similar situation last year, although I had at least been shooting regularly as part of Marine Corps training, and have confidence in employing various weapons systems.

First, it will probably help to read some of the books that are readily available by internet/mail order, such as from Brian Enos. I haven't read Anderson, and his book is still waiting a reprint. Matt Burkett has some interesting videos. I also recommend DR Middlebrooks, but he is very controversial.

Second, take a class, preferably from someone who is both recommended by others, and who teaches to your interest (competition, self-defense, or whatever). I have no personal knowledge of anyone teaching in WI, but I'm sure someone here can recommend an instructor.

Third, be open minded about what people are recommending and teaching. Brian Enos, et al, are experts in their field, but that does not mean there are not different ways to "skin the cat", despite (or perhaps in spite of) what is argued here.

Last, the laser device may work for you and it may not. For what it's worth, I don't think it would hurt you to use it.

 

[Zak Smith]

I can see how lots of people would find the laser useless, but not how it is actually harmful.

In my first post, I explained one aspect of how using the laser can reinforce a bad habit:

Looking for the laser's dot trains you to look for visual confirmation of the hit (the "hole"). That is not the way to shoot fast.

 

[Control Group]

Point taken. But, as bad habits go, I think "looking for the hole" is less problematic than "I don't know what I'm aiming at." I'm in the latter category, and that's my point. If you can take proper reading of your sight picture for granted, then I guess the laser isn't for you, but that doesn't make it useless for everyone.

In any event, I still don't see how seeing where your round would have hit with a laser is any worse than seeing where your round did hit in real practice - you ignore the hole in your target, you could ignore the laser flash, too - but I can accept that I only don't get it because I'm not experienced enough to understand it, and trust that you're right.

 

[Ankeny]

Comments about Sevigny, Middlebrooks, etc. not training but getting results as good as guys like Rob Leatham is a down right crock and everyone knows it. For crying out loud, all of those guys have trained hard for years and years. To assert that "your guys" never train and don't look at their sights, but can get results as good as the best practical shooters on the planet does little more than rob you of all credibility. :banghead:

 

[bradvanhorn]

To assert that "your guys" never train and don't look at their sights, but can get results as good as the best practical shooters on the planet...

Please quote where I said this.

 

[bradvanhorn]

Ankeny (Apr 20th, 09:24 PM) = In dry fire, I always look for that Kodak moment, perfect sight picture and good sight alignment.

Ankeny (Apr 21st, 11:19 PM) = Front sight press? I can barely see the front sight and I slap the trigger. Good grief.

Please explain to us how you get perfect sight picture when you can barely see the front sight.
Talk about contradictions and cause for ( :banghead: )

 

[Correia]

Ok boys, time to take Ol' Yeller behind the barn. This one is done.