This is the most horrendous conflation of "process" and "result" I've ever seen. That's really saying something, because I watched Mack Brown coach football for 15 years. Just because something bad hasn't happened yet does not mean that something is a good idea.Originally Posted by Jack Ryan
Sheep Have Wool
HERESY
Although, you raise a point that I hadn't really thought about. In all of these situations where dudes like Bob or myself are on the trigger early, we have 100% made the decision to fire the gun. There's no question in my mind that at the start of an IDPA stage I'm going to draw the gun to a "threat" target and shoot it. That's what I'm there to do. When I'm at a match and I draw my gun administratively for LAMR, my finger is always in register, because I've made the decision to not fire the gun.
To relate this back to the civilian world and away from games, as a civilian/non-LEO, most times I'd draw my gun under duress would be if I'd already made a decision to shoot. But that could change in the 1.x seconds it takes to get the gun there. Which gives me an idea for a neat shoot/no-shoot experiment:
Set up a target with a green and red light that randomly cycle on and off. On the green light, the shooter draws and fires until the red light comes on. You could set it up so that the red light could come on at any time, whether it's during the draw or while shooting. I would be interested to see the results of something like that.
Force Science has done work like that, you'd see at least a few shots after the red light comes on because reaction time works at both ends of the firing cycle, as in deciding to start AND when to stop if there is not a predetermined number of shots to be fired.
In real world, maybe you are drawing with a quickness, lets say against an already drawn gun being held by an obvious bad guy, if you get ALLLLLL of the slack out a bit too early and shoot the bad guy in the knee or crotch on the way up, it that a fail? Methinks not.
I understand getting on a DA trigger earlier than a short trigger, because of the length of travel and weight of the trigger. Watching the Langdon M9 Beretta video, I believe Ernest discusses this as part of shooting the 92. Conversely, I have come to think that, even leaving aside safety considerations, there is not a technical argument for being early on a striker/SA trigger.
I have come to believe, without question, that the fastest/most accurate first shot with a striker like the Glock, is to present as quickly as possible, only taking up the initial slack in the trigger as the pistol nears extension, phase to confirm sight alignment as necessary, and then to row the trigger from initial take-up to the shot in one motion. (see discussion of the Wayne Dobbs drill in the shooting groups quickly thread).
While getting on a striker length and weight trigger early might "feel" faster, I think it does nothing good for your shooting while potentially causing safety issues.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
For what it's worth, this is the trigger pull I strive for with a DA revolver as well. I don't want to pre-travel it or take it up on the way to the target, I just want to get the gun on target as quick as possible, then row the trigger. The initial photo I shared is from a series, and you can actually go frame by frame and see that the hammer doesn't start to travel back until the gun's all the way out front.
I think the advantage of this technique is simplicity and consistency.
You train your draw and index to get the sights aligned with your target through repetitions. The only thing you are doing with the trigger on the way out is getting the slack out. Then you row through the trigger.
This is the same way I have begun shooting my groups at 25-100 yards. Same way I shoot two inch dots. Same way I shoot a 3x5. Same way I make shot one on a Bill drill. Same way I draw to a steel.
Seems easier then having infinite variation in speed, to break the shot at extension, as with the other technique.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
I pretty much agree with this.
The way I was taught was that two conditions must be met to put the finger inside the trigger guard: muzzle is aligned with target, and conscious decision to fire has been made.
The way I phrase it now in teaching is essentially the same. Muzzle aligned is key, because that then brings in the issues of how you know the muzzle is aligned, and the sensitivity of the shot (foreground, background, difficulty of the shot.) In basic pistol class, I tell them that at this beginning point in their training, that they will know the gun is aligned with the target when they see the sights aligned with the target. As training progresses, I address their developing ability to reasonably believe the gun is aligned with the target other ways, from coarse visual alignment to purely kinesthetic awareness when it comes to contact shooting.
Technical excellence supports tactical preparedness
Lord of the Food Court
http://www.gabewhitetraining.com
LIKE
The forum has discussed this many times before. There's a way to draw that compromises a little bit of safety for a little bit of speed, and there's a way to draw that compromises a little bit of speed for a little more safety. I prefer the latter. I want to see the sights lined up on my target before I touch the trigger. Being safe enough at a 180-degree game range isn't the same as being safe enough in the middle of a busy food court at the mall during an active shooter incident. YMMV.
I actually recall you uh...gently...admonishing me about this at the Speed Class a few years back in Washington.
Not at all aimed at you dude, but... I find it very funny when the same pro shooters who say how low priority draw speed is at a major match are also the ones who insist you practice the less safe draw technique where you consider the "muzzle safe area" to be an entire 180-degree arc downrange. Do not like.
Reply With Quote