Balancing Speed and Accuracy

[jamautry]

We hear the term Balancing Speed and Accuracy all of the time, but as I get started back in serious shooting I am beginning to believe that we are doing ourselves and others a disservice when we use this term. The logical conclusion from the statement is that you missed the shot you were trying to make because you were going to fast when in reality speed probably had nothing to do with it. I think lack of focus on sights and trigger control is the culprit. From my own experience, when I want to shoot fast I make a conscious decision to move the gun really fast and I end up spraying and praying and when I think back on my sight pictures during the run I realize I had no idea other than a blur. From some experimenting if I go back and say I am going to shot fast but I am going to focus on seeing fast I can make my hits and shoot just as fast as the first run. I think the phrase "Balance Speed and Accuracy" should be replaced with "Shoot as fast as you can see the sights". The idea being that if you are not getting the hits you want then refine your sight picture not slow down. Or if you are not going as fast as you want then move your eyes faster and just keep up with the gun. As experienced shooters what are your thoughts?

[Leroy]

Most serious and competitive shooters come to the same conclusion.

[PPGMD]

USPSA punishes misses very very harshly, so there is no balancing a miss.

But the balance of speed and accuracy is balancing A vs B vs C vs D. And the balance equation is really only there at the lower levels where you can literally run through the stage fast enough to make up for shooting less than 75% of the points available.

At the national champion level they can't give up those points unless it is a truly hard shot.

[SailDesign]

"Seconds count - misses don't!"

[joshs]

I think there is a lot that can be gained from coming to the understanding that it theoretically doesn't take any longer to shoot an A, C, D, or miss, but, in practice, I think there is some amount of balance. On one of his more recent videos, Vogel shoots a few El Prezs using both USPSA Major and IDPA scoring. He notes that he has to slow down to improve his score when switching from Major to IDPA scoring. That certainly seems like a "balance" to me.

[GJM]

I think "going slower" only guarantees a slower time, and not necessarily better hits.

I would say "shoot when the sights are sufficiently aligned for the target you are shooting, while working the trigger appropriately for the target you are shooting." Take whatever time it takes to align the sights/work the trigger. Some may feel otherwise, but based on the amount of sight misalignment you can get away with and still hit the target, I think the working the trigger part is even more important than sights.

[taadski]

I very much agree with the OP.

Re the Vogel example, I don't disagree that as target requirements change, the pace of the shooting is going to change. I think the "slow down" terminology, though, potentially sets us up for failure in that we're disposing ourselves to a pre-conceived pace instead of simply using the visual data present as the speedometer and breaking the shot as soon as the sight picture is adequate. The train comes off the tracks for folks when they "try" and shoot at a pace that their vision skills can't keep up with (for one reason or another).

t

[Leroy]

Think of it as not going slower but more like I have more to complete to make the shot, typically more sight alignment and trigger control, sometimes you can complete multiple tasks simultaneously therefore being more accurate at the same speed ( a good example would be more trigger prep during sight alignment vs sight alignment then trigger slap). Yes, sometimes the end result can be slower time with better accuracy, but your not mentally moving slower, your always "working" at the same speed. It can sound silly but some people think "slower" and the whole process slows when all that was need was a very small portion of the process to take longer because more needed to be accomplished during that small portion of the process.

[Mr_White]

I think there is a lot that can be gained from coming to the understanding that it theoretically doesn't take any longer to shoot an A, C, D, or miss, but, in practice, I think there is some amount of balance.

I very much agree. It's mostly important not to think in speed-focused terms (either fast or slow.)

[YVK]

I think the phrase "Balance Speed and Accuracy" should be replaced with "Shoot as fast as you can see the sights". The idea being that if you are not getting the hits you want then refine your sight picture...

...and that means taking an additional time to refine that sight pic. Taking additional time, however short, from timer's standpoint is slowing down. Similarly, if one needs to execute a more careful trigger press, then however small fraction of time a smooth pull takes over quick slap, it is still slowing down. I don't like balance vs accuracy term as it implies a zero sum game, but I have no problem with slowing down aspect when misses are due to shooter rushing things beyond limits of his/her visual or technical control.

[1slow]

I think "going slower" only guarantees a slower time, and not necessarily better hits.

I would say "shoot when the sights are sufficiently aligned for the target you are shooting, while working the trigger appropriately for the target you are shooting." Take whatever time it takes to align the sights/work the trigger. Some may feel otherwise, but based on the amount of sight misalignment you can get away with and still hit the target, I think the working the trigger part is even more important than sights.


I would agree. I've missed more shots from bad trigger manipulation than from bad sight picture/alignment.

[45dotACP]

I was listening to Ben Stoeger's podcast and he made a mention of the fact that he doesn't consider close targets to be "easy" but rather he considers them to be "fast" targets.