interesting article that ends up with a good discussion of speed and accuracy

[GJM]

http://www.gmshooting.com/shooting-a-different-division-to-hone-specific-skills-part-1/

The article discusses shooting a different USPSA division as a training method for improving skills, but ends up with a good discussion of speed vs accuracy.

[ranger]

I shot USPSA for a long time (B or C Class) and had speed but only "ok" accuracy. I shoot IDPA now and I STRUGGLE because of accuracy issues. I constantly struggle with speed vs accuracy. Agreed - nice discussion of speed vs accuracy.

[45dotACP]

Nick Yanutola is a smart dude.

[98z28]

Nice find. It's interesting that he went down the road towards accuracy first and then learned how to go faster in USPSA. Bringing that speed back to IDPA with the same or similar accuracy resulted in a significant boost. It seems like we all tend towards either speed or accuracy at first. Shooters who like to go fast have a hard time learning accuracy. Shooters who like to shoot accurately have a hard time speeding up. In my limited experience, shooters who lean towards accuracy are able to learn speed easier than shooters who tend towards speed are able to learn accuracy. Either route will get you to a similar destination, it just seems to be faster to learn accuracy first and then add speed. I may be (probably am) biased as I come from the accuracy camp, but it seems to be a consistent observation from other instructors.

[Sal Picante]

Shooters who like to go fast have a hard time learning accuracy. Shooters who like to shoot accurately have a hard time speeding up.

I don't necessarily think so; I agree that people seem to tend towards one or the other in the beginning, but I think people who are motivated will really work their way out of any initial bias pretty quick with even a bit of focused practice. The trick is having a metric and designing drills/training plan to get you to that metric.

[GJM]

Nice find. It's interesting that he went down the road towards accuracy first and then learned how to go faster in USPSA. Bringing that speed back to IDPA with the same or similar accuracy resulted in a significant boost. It seems like we all tend towards either speed or accuracy at first. Shooters who like to go fast have a hard time learning accuracy. Shooters who like to shoot accurately have a hard time speeding up. In my limited experience, shooters who lean towards accuracy are able to learn speed easier than shooters who tend towards speed are able to learn accuracy. Either route will get you to a similar destination, it just seems to be faster to learn accuracy first and then add speed. I may be (probably am) biased as I come from the accuracy camp, but it seems to be a consistent observation from other instructors.


I don't necessarily think so; I agree that people seem to tend towards one or the other in the beginning, but I think people who are motivated will really work their way out of any initial bias pretty quick with even a bit of focused practice. The trick is having a metric and designing drills/training plan to get you to that metric.

I actually think you are both right.

Many people like to do what they are good at. So, for example if you have a fast draw, you do lots of fast draw practice. If you are good at accuracy, you make sure you always have a pack of B8 targets in your range bag. Good shooters, though, are fast and accurate, and can set the speed dial appropriately for whatever targets they are presented.

If you don't have the self perception and/or discipline to organize your practice to improve what you aren't good at, you need some to help you.

[MGW]

I'm not sure I believe this article. He's saying he went from IDPA to USPSA and then BACK to IDPA? No way [emoji3]

[Gio]

What most people never figure out how to do, regardless of the action type shooting activity, is have the visual patience and discipline to shoot when the sight picture is appropriate. What makes a sight picture appropriate is different for different uspsa divisions or Idpa. People who go too fast generally shoot twice with one sight picture (or no sight picture) or without letting the front sight settle from the recoil of the previous shot. People who go too slow see plenty of acceptable sight picture before they press the trigger or have an acceptable sight picture that would get them an A or -0 but continue to wait for the sight picture to be even cleaner.

You can generally go farther in uspsa by being very fast but not that accurate than you can by the inverse, but you will never climb to the top levels of the sport without mastering visual discipline.

[MDS]

I don't necessarily think so; I agree that people seem to tend towards one or the other in the beginning, but I think people who are motivated will really work their way out of any initial bias pretty quick with even a bit of focused practice. The trick is having a metric and designing drills/training plan to get you to that metric.
My experience agrees with this precisely. It seems that in either case, the first step is to admit you have a problem, and then if you're motivated, you'll commit to some disciplined training and fix it pretty quick.

But lots of folks aren't motivated. They'll absorb whatever bias they get in their formative teachings and only exaggerate it over time. So I'm glad that most instructors tend to emphasize accuracy, because if folks are going to be biased - and I'm thinking here about people carrying guns in the real world - then I'd rather have a bunch of accuracy-biased folks running around.

[rob_s]

I don't necessarily think so; I agree that people seem to tend towards one or the other in the beginning, but I think people who are motivated will really work their way out of any initial bias pretty quick with even a bit of focused practice. The trick is having a metric and designing drills/training plan to get you to that metric.

that bit in red is a complex concept. Motivated by what, to accomplish what? By whom? What's the stated motivation and what's the true motivation.

Most guys that were taught first to either tend towards accuracy or tend towards speed were given a reason by that instructor to do so, and it's damn hard to get them to ever drop that idea as not being correct. Even worse are the people that discovered a natural tendency or skill towards one or the other and then set about conjuring up a rationale for it.