PDA

View Full Version : Press-Out: Good or Bad?



Failure2Stop
06-10-2012, 10:38 AM
not quite as inefficient as the pure pressout while still allowing you to pick up the sights before the gun is at full extension.

Could you talk on this a bit?
What do you find inefficient about the press-out?
Or maybe the question is: what do you define the "pure" press-out to be, and how does it differ from the "J" draw?

TGS
06-10-2012, 10:44 AM
I've always heard that Ernest Langdon had a big role in popularizing the press-out through his classes and championship wins, but this as always thrown me off:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rn3P5kUjro&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL234ACD639B5BA97E

Clearly not a press-out. I'm wondering if the video taker was just confused.....

YVK
06-10-2012, 12:53 PM
I've made the same observation, TGS. During the class, E.L. taught the pressout and demonstrated the drill showing pressout being faster on a reduced size target (3x5). On the videos he seems to be doing more of a straighter presentation.
One thing that Ernest taught different from what I heard from Todd is working the trigger depending on trigger properties. As an example, he said the wouldn't get on 1911 trigger until he saw the sights clearly on the target, while with longer DA pull he could be more aggressive with getting on trigger earlier. The videos show him shooting M&P that would require a lot less time to complete trigger press than DA/SA Beretta he used teaching our class. I wonder if this accounts for a difference in presentation, but that's a speculation on my part.

Mr_White
06-10-2012, 01:00 PM
Shooting at a certain level (like most things) becomes much more about the amount of time practicing and much less about specific techniques. I think you'd be better off taking a conceptual approach (I.e. clear the cover garment, bring the gun out, see what I need to see) and practicing a ton versus a technique based approach (clear cover garment at a certain point, use a press out, put sights directly on target, etc). Your body will figure out what it needs to do if you practice enough.


I think the further you get from just grabbing the gun and putting it on target, the worse off you are. I think one should practice by telling your body that you want to align the sights inside some apparent target area and letting it figure out the rest. Stop trying to control everything - Inner Game of Tennis style. That's how I feel. YMMV.



...not quite as inefficient as the pure pressout while still allowing you to pick up the sights before the gun is at full extension...



What do you find inefficient about the press-out?


I know nobody was asking me directly, but I would like to just jump right in...:)

This is a very interesting topic to me, since I wallow in the draw all the time and really love it as a fundamental gunhandling skill.

This post is also a partial answer to this thread: http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4419-Getting-2-hits-under-2-sec-to-the-3x5-at-7-yds

Before I really started participating on p-f, I was doing basically the inverted J, though the gun didn’t get into my true eye-target line until the last few inches of the horizontal line of presentation. I didn’t realize that until I saw video of myself doing the Bill Drill DotW from back in October. I had thought that I was presenting in the true eye-target line, but wasn’t. I was finding sufficient visual awareness of the sights just from seeing them at the end of extension when they really did get into the eye-target line. I was excited and happy about what I had learned to do, which was much more and better and faster than I’d ever done before.

Todd’s general assertion that the press-out, the technique itself, is associated with a higher hit percentage (that the technique itself is more reliable), coupled with his own awesomely consistent performance against the 3x5, like 95 to 98% hits when he’s reported it, made me want to try the press-out, or at least a muzzle-level variation of it to see what I think about the hit percentage thing. (Todd I sincerely hope that didn’t amount to me unfairly putting words in your mouth – the above is my recollection, but please correct me if I am wrong about that.) I generally hit at 90% at best, less commonly 100%, and a lot of days aren’t at 90% either, so I wanted to explore this…

Since then, I’ve been doing things a couple of different ways: a muzzle-level version of the press-out, where immediately after the hands join and I actually get the gun into the true eye-target line while keeping it as level as I can, I slow the gun’s speed in the horizontal line of presentation, get hard visual focus on the front sight, and drive out from there at less than full speed, continuously refining the sights and adding pressure to the trigger, breaking the shot near full extension.
I also haven’t forgotten my old extend-stop-press way.

The extend-stop-press way, when I do it at full speed, doesn’t allow me to finely adjust the sight picture until the gun is almost stopped in the last few inches of extension, which is one of Todd’s points in favor of the press-out, I think, and is more reliant on a combination of indexing and coarse visual information to put the gun where it needs to go so no/minimal sight picture refinement is needed before the shot breaks. The issue isn’t the path the gun moves through, it’s the speed that doesn’t allow me to finely adjust the sight picture until near the end of extension.

My observation is that that loss of efficiency (not seeing and finely adjusting the sights as early) is totally offset by the fact that I can move through the extend-stop-press draw at a higher rate of speed than I do when I try to do any form of press-out. I have to slow down a lot to see what the press-out is trying to let me see. I wonder if this is the inefficiency that Donovan is referencing? Donovan?

Because of the increased speed of the extend-stop-press, when I am on, which is often, I ultimately get the shot done faster by a couple of tenths. When I am not on, which is also a regular occurrence, then it just takes a couple of extra tenths to fix the insufficient sight picture I might see using the extend-stop-press, and the shot breaks at pretty much press-out speed.

What I have not been able to reconcile for myself, is any difference in consistency of hits. I have wondered from the beginning whether Todd is correct about the consistency (he may well be), or he is just an extremely consistent performer himself with his chosen technique, or if there’s no inherent consistency advantage to either technique.

Some days I do better with a muzzle-level press-out type thing.

Some days I do better with an extend-stop-press type thing.

Some days they are the same.

Every day I wonder if I am overthinking this.

What I really think I notice consistently is that when I miss, I did something wrong, regardless of technique. And that wrong thing is normally either a little jerking the trigger, or a support hand yip that shoves the shot high or high and right. Absent those errors, I like both techniques.

I haven’t come to any real conclusion, and am certainly attracted to the idea of more consistent hits via a press-out technique, but also very much feel the philosophy of ‘letting your body come up with the answer through careful and perpetual practice,’ which is what I did before participating on p-f. And that has worked well for me. The real question is whether another way would work better, and that’s the riddle I have not solved.

So, I don’t know. But this is a very interesting discussion to me nevertheless.

Matt O
06-10-2012, 02:07 PM
Every day I wonder if I am overthinking this.

What I really think I notice consistently is that when I miss, I did something wrong, regardless of technique. And that wrong thing is normally either a little jerking the trigger, or a support hand yip that shoves the shot high or high and right. Absent those errors, I like both techniques.

I haven’t come to any real conclusion, and am certainly attracted to the idea of more consistent hits via a press-out technique, but also very much feel the philosophy of ‘letting your body come up with the answer through careful and perpetual practice,’ which is what I did before participating on p-f. And that has worked well for me. The real question is whether another way would work better, and that’s the riddle I have not solved.

So, I don’t know. But this is a very interesting discussion to me nevertheless.

Very strongly agree with all of the above. I have not yet figured out what style of draw I like best, or what is most efficient for me and it is entirely possible I am overthinking things. That said, I enjoy reading different perspectives from people who have either confidently chosen or "mastered" their particular technique, in the hopes that I may glean some nuggets of wisdom that help me find what works best for myself.

JAD
06-10-2012, 07:20 PM
[mispost, mods please delete if you like]

Surf
06-10-2012, 11:54 PM
Again I will stress that I am not a competition shooter and there are many great pistol guys here that would smoke me. Having said that, I may be a bit different in that I train and perform a variety of methods for many functions including the draw / presentation, while many might keep things narrowed down a bit more so they can focus more on less. For myself I use more than one draw and presentation which is dictated by the situation that I am facing. Factors may include but not be limited to time, distance, cover, static, moving, in coming fire, etc... In my shooting and video's I can clearly be seen using a press out as usually described on this forum or I can be seen using more of a 45* style as described by the competition comments. In all honesty I really don't think about it, it just happens. I will add that due to my body structure and having 3 shoulder surgeries, a high press out starting close to my head and eyes is a bit difficult.

GOP
06-11-2012, 12:30 PM
Being completely honest, I think that an index type draw is incredibly faster and has much more potential for high level shooter than does the press out on almost all shots/drills. I think that a press-out is probably the best way for a beginner or intermediate shooter without a lot of time to train to get to a decent FAST time, but I think that if you have much time to practice and can actually hit a 3x5 on demand EVERY TIME at 7m, a index draw is the way to go. A press-out is useless for me unless I want a slower time, because my index is pretty much on now target now. I'm almost to the point with my index draw that I can hit a 8" plate at 25m without using the sights (though I have no idea why I wouldn't).

Slavex
06-11-2012, 12:41 PM
Care to explain how an index draw allows you to be so much faster? I have yet to read how an index draw results in a faster first shot. If we're talking efficiency, the sooner you grab your sights the sooner you can break a shot. With your index draw that's not until you are at full extension.

GOP
06-11-2012, 01:14 PM
Care to explain how an index draw allows you to be so much faster? I have yet to read how an index draw results in a faster first shot. If we're talking efficiency, the sooner you grab your sights the sooner you can break a shot. With your index draw that's not until you are at full extension.

Maybe I should have clarified that I am referring to a competition shooting environment, not a tactical environment because I know nothing about that. In competition (as you obviously know...or at least here in the States), you are primarily shooting 8" plates at 7-15m. You don't even need sights a lot of the times if you want to be technical. How does an index style draw become faster than a press out draw? Because your body has become so used to where to point the gun that you can break the shot on auto-pilot. Your brain aligns the sights extremely fast, ESPECIALLY on something big like a 3x5 at 7m. If you can't hit a 3x5 on demand every time at 7m from the holster with an index draw, than I recommend buying SIRT and dry firing the heck out of it until your body can point the gun where you want it subconsciously. I've yet to see anyone on video running a sub 3 to 3.5 second FAST using a press-out, and though I can get in the mid to high 3's pretty consistently now on the FAST with an index draw, my press out is in the low 4's. The very best shooters in the world currently use a index draw for the most part, unless they are running a DA/SA. Again, I think that with enough practice (hours and hours), an index draw becomes much more efficient than a press out style draw; however, for a beginner or someone without a ton of time to train, I think the press-out is the way to go. I practice A LOT because I want a future in shooting, so I may not be an excellent example.

Edit: I wanted to add that I'm not here whatsoever looking for an argument and there are much better shooters here than me. I'm just sharing my opinion, so hopefully we could have a logical discussion versus an emotional one.

Slavex
06-11-2012, 01:58 PM
I disagree, I use a press out almost exclusively during competition I find it to be the fastest way to nail plates, on the draw and after reloads in single action as well. It's second nature to me, on shots where I don't need to grab a tight sight picture I still press out for my shots. I find it to be a much more uniform index with the press out. Talking to Bob Vogel in Norway last week he says he uses the same technique, depending on what's required. The upside to using the press out is that you can fall back to a standard dard index draw easily, on simple large targets, but the same can't be said if you only do the index.

GOP
06-11-2012, 02:47 PM
I disagree, I use a press out almost exclusively during competition I find it to be the fastest way to nail plates, on the draw and after reloads in single action as well. It's second nature to me, on shots where I don't need to grab a tight sight picture I still press out for my shots. I find it to be a much more uniform index with the press out. Talking to Bob Vogel in Norway last week he says he uses the same technique, depending on what's required. The upside to using the press out is that you can fall back to a standard dard index draw easily, on simple large targets, but the same can't be said if you only do the index.

Very good points here, especially the last line. For me, I seem to be able to draw to hard targets relatively easy and fast, even something like a 1" square at 10m. I rarely find myself having to refine my sight picture much on difficult targets, even things like movers and swingers. I also am getting the gun up and on target much easier in my limited experience because the gun goes on target in a more efficient manner (directly to the target as opposed to up to the eyes then on the target). I may try to incorporate some press-outs in dry fire this week, then test out my times on a 1" square at 10m to see how it works out.

Leozinho
06-11-2012, 03:52 PM
Talking to Bob Vogel in Norway last week he says he uses the same technique, depending on what's required. The upside to using the press out is that you can fall back to a standard dard index draw easily, on simple large targets, but the same can't be said if you only do the index.

I was only halfway paying attention to all the "press out" threads until I read that Bob Vogel uses a press out. That's news. Maybe I missed it, somebody needs to come up with a consensus on what is a press-out, what is an inverted J, and what's an "index draw". Preferably with videos.

'Cause Vogel's draw looks nothing like the Toddg pressout that's on youtube.

Is anyone saying that picking out the sights a few inches from full extension (i.e. method described in Enos' book) is a press out? Then, yeah, in that case almost all successful competitors use a "press out", You don't want to be like the Crossfit koolaid drinkers, who every time they see a successful athlete doing something other than just curling in the squat rack they say "He's basically doing CF." "That Ben Stoeger, he basically press out."

(BTW, I don't know who is trying to coin the term "index draw" but there are only three references to an "index draw" on Benos. One use is in reference to a shooter's natural point of aim. The other two references are unclear.)

DonovanM
06-11-2012, 04:47 PM
Could you talk on this a bit?
What do you find inefficient about the press-out?
Or maybe the question is: what do you define the "pure" press-out to be, and how does it differ from the "J" draw?

Pure pressout: moving to pick your nose with your rear sight on the draw and driving the gun out straight from there to the target. Looks like an upside-down L.
Inverted "J" draw: your hands coming together at about sternum height and driving the gun out from there by "climbing the hill". The sights are picked up ~6" before the gun is at full extension (for me at least).
Index draw: Holster -> target, shortest path possible. Sights picked up only at full extension, such as what is seen in any of the sub 3 second FAST videos or Steel Challenge.

Purely in terms of distance traveled, the index draw is faster than an inverted J which is faster than a pure pressout.

Now the argument is this: is what you are doing with the sights on the way to the target beneficial enough, in terms of getting them aligned for the shot, to make up for the greater distance traveled? IE, how will it effect your time to first shot as opposed to your draw time (two very separate and distinct things).

The answer to this question is directly proportional to the strength of your index, and I would hope the answer is yes, it is beneficial, for most people who use the pressout. But as we can see from guys like Bob Vogel and Ben Stoeger, their index is so strong that they gain nothing by picking up their sights before they're at full extension, so they just get the gun on the target as fast as possible because they can align it how they wish in the fraction of a second it takes to get on target. I on the other hand am not them and my index is pretty weak so I draw to pick up my sights a little before full extension, while being confident enough not to desire a pure pressout even when doing a 25y Bill drill (a much harder target than a 3x5 at 7y).

My position as it stands now is that the pressout is a good technique for the beginning or intermediate shooter to be more confident on their ability to put a fast first shot on a small target. Anyone who decides to have more than a passing interest in pistolcraft however would be better served with a J or index draw. This is purely in terms of speed and efficiency. We can come up with a million what-if scenarios where one might be marginally better than the other, but I am really not interested in that kind of discussion as it represents a way of thinking completely divorced from my own. If those considerations are important to you, your priorities are obviously different and we can agree to disagree. You must however admit that you are giving up a not insignificant amount of speed and efficiency for tactical considerations... it is simply common sense and there is also nothing wrong with that.


Care to explain how an index draw allows you to be so much faster? I have yet to read how an index draw results in a faster first shot. If we're talking efficiency, the sooner you grab your sights the sooner you can break a shot. With your index draw that's not until you are at full extension.

The only way that would ever be able to irrefutably be tested is if an unbiased third party was exactly as proficient with a pressout as they were with an index draw. This would be impossible in many different ways, not the least of which including the nebulous levels of proficiency involved with each and the times associated with being able to calculate that, which would only be available through having done the test... if this paragraph made any sense at all.

I think you either misunderstood Vogel or he misunderstood you because his sub 3 FAST run is pure, 100% index draw. I have never seen him do anything resembling a pressout. But I could be wrong. If you can provide video of him doing anything resembling one I think that would be very interesting and would cause me to significantly rethink my position.

He draws to some EXTREMELY tight targets in this video, especially at the :20 or so mark... no pressout, or anything resembling one. All index.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9NHHqB_PPo&feature=related

Slavex
06-11-2012, 05:03 PM
Only misunderstanding seems to be you. I didn't say he used a press out on the FAST, but that he said he does a type of press out when he needs to. He said he uses what he needs depending on what he has to accomplish.

YVK
06-11-2012, 05:56 PM
Anyone who decides to have more than a passing interest in pistolcraft however would be better served with a J or index draw.

I would imagine this is a bit of exaggeration. I shoot over 10K rounds a year, yet I do better with pressout than with index. I hope that, while not comparable to true high volume shooters here, this qualifies me as having more than passing interest. Of course, I am not that talented, so perhaps my 10K amount to 1k in hands of those who are better than I am.
Two more observations:
1. Pressout is not only or necessarily about aiming for me, it is about giving me more time to work the trigger smoothly.
2. I will bet dollars to donuts that anybody who is shooting DA/SA or LEM - like triggers and doing index draw are working those triggers way before they see the sights when they are pushing the speed. I believe Ben Stoeger alluded to this in one his posts. 1911, Glock, M&P, I can see shooters with strong index, gorilla grips and great trigger control to index-draw and then complete trigger press from start to finish. Sig, Beretta or HK - no way. And that gets to your very valid point about what are the individual priorities and considerations. I am not working my triggers until my sights are reasonably on target, others may do differently.

DonovanM
06-11-2012, 06:02 PM
Only misunderstanding seems to be you. I didn't say he used a press out on the FAST, but that he said he does a type of press out when he needs to. He said he uses what he needs depending on what he has to accomplish.

...And what I said was that I have never seen him use anything even resembling a pressout on a wide variety of targets he was drawing to, targets ranging from a 3x5 card at 7y to 25+ yard IPSC targets. Does he suddenly start doing pressouts if it's a partial target at that distance? I must be missing something here...

Or I guess I'm focused on target difficulty here and that may not be what's going on. So when DOES Bob Vogel use a pressout, exactly?

GOP
06-11-2012, 06:08 PM
YVK brings up another great point; I think the press-out works much better with certain triggers than others. Once my sights are on target with my PPQ, I can work the trigger very fast with no issue. IF I was running a Da/SA, I'd probably prefer to be working the trigger sooner. So, I'll rephrase my current opinion:

For beginner to intermediate shooters OR those shooting DA/SAs and LEMS the pressout as described at P-F is great. For advanced shooters or those shooting most SFA's, I believe a index draw is the way to go. Really though, we need a strong definition of the different types of draws before anyone can truly conclude anything.

MDS
06-11-2012, 06:53 PM
For advanced shooters or those shooting most SFA's, I believe a index draw is the way to go.

This idea has been mentioned a few times in this thread. I'm definitely not an advanced shooter, and my half-assed self-taught press-out works better for me than anything else I've tried. I plan to keep using it until I can hit <7s FASTs cold on demand. If/when I decide to put in the time and effort to get better than that, I might have to spend some significant time getting competent with various draw techniques, so I can make up my own mind.

All that said, how advanced is advanced, in your opinion, for the purposes of preferring an index draw? I.e., how good does someone have to be before the index draw "is the way to go?" Can you quantify that, somehow? E.g., "draw&2 on a 3x5@7yd in <2s."

(Reading the above, it kind of sounds argumentative. Please believe I'm just asking an honest question...)

DonovanM
06-11-2012, 07:09 PM
I think if you get to the point where you can row a DA trigger pretty quickly without it disturbing your sights you'd still be better off with a J draw, or index. When I was running a SIG the DA trigger really didn't add that much time to my draw. I could break a shot at full speed on most USPSA targets right as I hit full extension no prob. On really tight shots, like 20yd steel, I'd align the sights then row the trigger. I'm an aggressively mediocre shooter, and it barely cost me anything. I draw the exact same now that I'm running a Glock.

If doing a pressout lets you be 100% confident in your trigger prep though and you'd rather have that than the cutting edge of speed... go for it.

Patrick Scott
06-11-2012, 07:25 PM
It looks like there was likely a confusion in terms between slavex and Vogel. Vogel using a “press out” is not evidenced by any available footage or public statements from Vogel. Without speaking with Vogel directly and explaining the elements of the press out (such as the path the gun takes as it goes to full extension, the concept of changing the speed of the press out based upon target difficulty) etc it is difficult to say with certainty if he does a press out or not. Vogel may use some elements of the technique at some times, but that just isn’t apparent from any information we have available at this time.

What is apparent is that world class shooters as a group do NOT favor the press out (even the ones that use DA/SA guns). It seems like it would be more productive to explore the reasoning behind that than to speculate as to the techniques that one particular shooter does or does not subscribe to.

beltjones
06-11-2012, 08:19 PM
This thread is interesting. Here's my take:

The Press-Out is an intermediate technique. I don't mean that in a negative way, as pretty much every technique is an intermediate technique. It's really tough to be advanced until you get to the "no technique" phase. To expand on that, I can see some aspects of the press out that would be helpful depending on the specific challenges of teaching different shooters. Starting to see the sights before the gun is at full extension, starting to prep the trigger before the gun is at full extension, and so on are things that will help shooters improve the speed of their draw. It's like teaching the 5 step draw - it helps beginning shooters start to incorporate the fundamentals with specific motions that are easy to remember; however, anyone who believes that such a draw is the be-all end-all will just have a herky-jerky, slow, terrible draw.

As we move on in our progression, we need to stop evaluating our performance based on adherence to an established technique, and start evaluating our performance based solely on measurable results.

I'm reminded of the following quote by Bruce Lee:

"The height of cultivation always runs to simplicity. Before I studied the art, a punch to me was just like a punch, a kick just like a kick. After I learned the art, a punch was no longer a punch, a kick no longer a kick. Now that I've understood the art, a punch is just like a punch, a kick just like a kick."

To a beginning shooter, a draw is just a draw. To an intermediate shooter a draw is either a press-out or a punch-out (not sure what that is), index draw (also not sure what that is), inverted J, whatever. At this level there is a lot of obsessing over which technique is used. At the next level, a shooter will discard all of that, and see that simplicity is the answer. At this point the draw is once again just a draw. If you asked a shooter at this level if he uses this technique or that technique, he would probably say, "Yeah, I use some of that, depending on what is required for the shot at hand." For the rest of us we would be better off carefully and thoughtfully eliminating every movement that doesn't result in getting the gun from the holster to firing an aimed shot.

theycallmeingot
06-11-2012, 08:27 PM
wow. perfectly put, beltjones.

DonovanM
06-11-2012, 09:01 PM
wow. perfectly put, beltjones.

I agree! The technique of no-technique. I think I talked circles around this without actually getting to the root of it. Well done to beltjones for really getting to the heart of the issue.

TCinVA
06-11-2012, 10:00 PM
I've watched Jerry Barnhardt instructing USAF PJ's and I've been in class with Ernie Langdon. Both talked about specifics of the draw and about picking up the sights during the draw as a means of gaining efficiency. Pretty sure I wasn't mis-hearing either individual.

To fire an aimed shot at some point you have to actually aim. If you're at grand master levels and have learned over a lot of practice and rounds fired to process the reference from the sights and make refinements in hundredths of a second by reflex then what you need to "aim" a shot from a visual perspective is going to be a hell of a lot different than what the average shooter needs to make the same shot. This shouldn't come as a shock. Rob Leatham slaps the unholy bejeezus out of the trigger too, but Rob Leatham's margin of error is so low thanks to a blend of insane levels of practice and a scary helping of talent that if he anticipates with that technique nobody can tell because he still makes the hit. That technique when applied to lots of people who aren't Rob Leatham doesn't work out so well in terms of getting them to hit a target on demand.

In any endeavor when you watch the highest level competitors there will be elements of individuality they have developed over the hours they've put into figuring out how to get from A to B. Some of that may be repeatable to the point where it can be taught to others as a means of helping them build skill. Some probably isn't because it's highly individual.

I mean, anyone here know what sight picture Vogel was seeing when he was shooting those ridiculously quick FAST runs? No, because none of us were in his head. It's possible he was shooting the 3x5 shots purely on index without really needing to pay much attention to his sights. If so, rock on...but if I take 1,000 shooters and run them through the test out of that 1,000 how many of them are actually going to hit the 3x5 twice repeatedly on index alone? Not many. It also shouldn't shock that if I took 1,000 people at random I'd have the devil's own time finding many who could deadlift 800 pounds like Ronnie Coleman or score 60+ points in an NBA playoff game against the Trailblazers like MJ.

The concept of getting someone on the sights as soon as possible so they can work on refining the picture and getting them to work through the trigger tends to get better results for folks than having them throw the gun out there as fast as they can, then find the sights, then try and crank through the trigger pull...which is the point of teaching it. It may not be the technique that the Air Jordans of the shooting world use for every shot they fire. Hell, I don't use it for every shot I fire either...only when I think I need it based on my understanding of what the shot requires of me. Wide open shot on an IDPA A zone at 7 yards? I probably won't need care much about my sights until the last fractions of a second before the shot breaks. Hitting a 1" square at the same distance? I'm going to have to do a good press out to have any hope of making that shot. People at the Super Squad level may not need what I need to make that shot. It's not terribly shocking as they're Super Squad and I'm not. That they can do it better with the technique they've refined over a lot more practice and trial and error than I've been through doesn't help me make the shot.

beltjones
06-11-2012, 10:19 PM
I've watched Jerry Barnhardt instructing USAF PJ's and I've been in class with Ernie Langdon. Both talked about specifics of the draw and about picking up the sights during the draw as a means of gaining efficiency. Pretty sure I wasn't mis-hearing either individual.

To fire an aimed shot at some point you have to actually aim. If you're at grand master levels and have learned over a lot of practice and rounds fired to process the reference from the sights and make refinements in hundredths of a second by reflex then what you need to "aim" a shot from a visual perspective is going to be a hell of a lot different than what the average shooter needs to make the same shot. This shouldn't come as a shock. Rob Leatham slaps the unholy bejeezus out of the trigger too, but Rob Leatham's margin of error is so low thanks to a blend of insane levels of practice and a scary helping of talent that if he anticipates with that technique nobody can tell because he still makes the hit. That technique when applied to lots of people who aren't Rob Leatham doesn't work out so well in terms of getting them to hit a target on demand.

In any endeavor when you watch the highest level competitors there will be elements of individuality they have developed over the hours they've put into figuring out how to get from A to B. Some of that may be repeatable to the point where it can be taught to others as a means of helping them build skill. Some probably isn't because it's highly individual.

I mean, anyone here know what sight picture Vogel was seeing when he was shooting those ridiculously quick FAST runs? No, because none of us were in his head. It's possible he was shooting the 3x5 shots purely on index without really needing to pay much attention to his sights. If so, rock on...but if I take 1,000 shooters and run them through the test out of that 1,000 how many of them are actually going to hit the 3x5 twice repeatedly on index alone? Not many. It also shouldn't shock that if I took 1,000 people at random I'd have the devil's own time finding many who could deadlift 800 pounds like Ronnie Coleman or score 60+ points in an NBA playoff game against the Trailblazers like MJ.

The concept of getting someone on the sights as soon as possible so they can work on refining the picture and getting them to work through the trigger tends to get better results for folks than having them throw the gun out there as fast as they can, then find the sights, then try and crank through the trigger pull...which is the point of teaching it.

I agree that seeing the sights at some point before the gun is at full extension is a key to efficiency. But my understanding of the press-out is that they should be picked up really, really early, when the gun is almost at the chin. At least that's what it looks like in a lot of the videos. Is it more efficient for a shooter to pick up the sights at the chin or a few inches from full extension? The best guys seem to pick up the sights later, but that's your point, isn't it? That the best guys are the best guys because they have developed the skill to pick up their sights later and still make accurate shots?

And that's my point - the press-out is an intermediate technique that can teach some very valuable skills like picking up the sights before full presentation and prepping the trigger during the extension of the gun. But judging the draw should not be done by only looking at what point the sights were picked up and whether or not the shot broke the instant the gun came to full extension. That kind of thinking reminds me of the old 1980s stylized karate guys who could whip slick backflips and spin kicks but who had never actually been in a fight. With the draw the only measurements that matter are where the round hit and how long it took to get there.

If you're working on the draw and your sights are "off" at extension, then definitely work on picking them up a little sooner. If you're getting to full extension and then you start to work the trigger, there is some time to make up by prepping a little sooner. But that doesn't mean that the sooner you pick up the sights the better, and it doesn't mean that not breaking at the moment of full extension is always a bad thing.

Slavex
06-12-2012, 02:43 AM
If I'd spent more time talking to Bob about his draw, how he preps the trigger or presses out I'd have more for you. But most of our discussion was based on the stage we were shooting and how we'd shoot it.
What would be nice here though would be if people actually posted their own opinions not posting verbatim what someone else tells them too. It's sad really, that it seems the entire point of entering this thread and a few others is to belittle and insult people, all on behalf of a banned member who is publicly asking you to do so. If you can't keep your posts polite and within forum rules, including the inter forum warfare rules, then don't post. If you need someone else to write your posts at least have the balls to say so.

beltjones
06-12-2012, 08:39 AM
If I'd spent more time talking to Bob about his draw, how he preps the trigger or presses out I'd have more for you. But most of our discussion was based on the stage we were shooting and how we'd shoot it.
What would be nice here though would be if people actually posted their own opinions not posting verbatim what someone else tells them too. It's sad really, that it seems the entire point of entering this thread and a few others is to belittle and insult people, all on behalf of a banned member who is publicly asking you to do so. If you can't keep your posts polite and within forum rules, including the inter forum warfare rules, then don't post. If you need someone else to write your posts at least have the balls to say so.

Agreed. But, perhaps it would be better to PM those individuals who are engaging in this behavior? Just a polite suggestion.

edited by ToddG... For the second time in about a week: stop telling Staff how to do their job. When you get banned for something then come right back and do it again, what do you expect is going to happen?

TCinVA
06-12-2012, 09:13 AM
I agree that seeing the sights at some point before the gun is at full extension is a key to efficiency. But my understanding of the press-out is that they should be picked up really, really early, when the gun is almost at the chin. At least that's what it looks like in a lot of the videos.


The earlier they are picked up, the more space someone has to refine the sight picture. For most shooters the sooner they can work on that the better their results will be, especially if they are shooting at a small target. Someone who has the millions of quality repetitions that your top level shooter has and who has the ability to process visual information at speed the way they can, is able do better work in less space and time than the average mortal.

The press out isn't an end, it's a means to an end.



Is it more efficient for a shooter to pick up the sights at the chin or a few inches from full extension? The best guys seem to pick up the sights later, but that's your point, isn't it? That the best guys are the best guys because they have developed the skill to pick up their sights later and still make accurate shots?


Like any other top level athlete who has spent many hours on a particular endeavor, they've developed abilities that exceed what most people are able to do. With a high level of experience and quality repetition comes advantages in motor skills and the ability to process visual information at speed. This has implications for the how and why of their actions. Some of these are useful for others at any level. Some of them are only useful if you've got their talent, physical abilities, experience, and the ungodly amount of homework they've put into it.



But judging the draw should not be done by only looking at what point the sights were picked up and whether or not the shot broke the instant the gun came to full extension.


I've never seen anyone on this site actually do that. I have yet to see anyone here look at a video of Rob Leatham shooting and criticize his draw because he isn't doing a textbook pressout. I'd be the first one to call such behavior silly, as one would have to actually be better than Rob Leatham to actually criticize the man's technique. I'm in no danger of besting TGO on anything and I doubt many are.

I've seen plenty of people advise others who are looking to improve their performance offer advice here about where they might be able to make improvements. The goal of using a pressout is to fire an aimed shot as efficiently as possible in a manner that is as repeatable as humanly possible. Using a pure index draw I can hit a 3x5 card really fast (for me)...once or twice out of dozens of tries. To hit it every time I need to use a different technique.

My best FAST run is on video here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg-8ggCH2OE&feature=youtu.be) Had I actually done a good press out on that run I probably would have shaved a bit off my time...but as it was, I didn't and so you can see a distinct pause once I've presented the gun as I make the final sighting adjustment and finish working the trigger.

Had I done a better pressout I would have scored better on the test. It would have been more efficient for me to properly apply the technique. Would I have beaten Vogel? No...but I would have done better than I did.

And that's the point.

ToddG
06-12-2012, 09:41 AM
Pure pressout: moving to pick your nose with your rear sight on the draw and driving the gun out straight from there to the target. Looks like an upside-down L.
Inverted "J" draw: your hands coming together at about sternum height and driving the gun out from there by "climbing the hill". The sights are picked up ~6" before the gun is at full extension (for me at least).
Index draw: Holster -> target, shortest path possible. Sights picked up only at full extension, such as what is seen in any of the sub 3 second FAST videos or Steel Challenge.

I read this and literally laughed out loud. It's hilarious to me that this whole crusade against the press-out that you guys are waging is based on what I'll charitably assume was a sincere misunderstanding.

A press-out, in simple terms, is using the time during the extension to align the eye-sights-target line and press the trigger.

"Pick your nose with your rear sight" certainly demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of what I do and doesn't reflect anything I've ever heard anyone describe as proper technique. But your use of the "L" is correct in terms of what I'm doing with my front sight. As you alluded in your own definition of a "j draw" different people will pick up their sights at different distances. Railing against folks who pick it up sooner than you seems like the dogma here, not the other way around.

The way I shoot -- and teach -- involves purposely putting the front sight up into the eye line as early as possible. This gives me a positive aiming reference all the way to the target. The gun levels out when it can... at a point pretty much exactly where the "j draw" approach puts the gun level in the same eye-sight-target line, in fact.


Now the argument is this: is what you are doing with the sights on the way to the target beneficial enough, in terms of getting them aligned for the shot, to make up for the greater distance traveled? IE, how will it effect your time to first shot as opposed to your draw time (two very separate and distinct things).

So there we have the tradeoff. As you pointed out, the fastest way (setting aside other concerns not related solely to speed... I'll get to that below) would be the index draw where the gun comes in more or less a straight line from the holster to full extension. That relies, obviously, on having an adequate index to get a reliable hit when the gun reaches full extension without needing to clean up the sight picture. If the shooter takes time to clean up the sight picture once at full extension, then the time saved getting to full extension faster doesn't really make a difference. The number of people who have an adequate index to hit even a relatively simple low% target consistently at the moment of extension is extremely small. I've seen more than a dozen IPSC GMs, including some national champs, who couldn't do it on demand for the FAST. They either broke the shot at extension and missed or they got to extension, stopped, fixed things, and then took the shot. That doesn't mean it's impossible to get two super fast hits to a 3x5 with an index draw. But being able to do it sometimes on the range isn't the same as being able to do it consistently on demand.

Anyway, sorry for the tangent. Back to the tradeoff. Doing "the j" allows the gun to move along a slightly shorter path from holster to target. It's still much more than an index, but less than the "L" that I teach. You keep talking about giving up a significant amount of speed but seriously, look at the J and L on your computer screen here. The difference is tiny. It would be interesting for someone to do the math of exactly what percentage of time in a draw is gained or lost by rounding that corner a few inches one way or the other.

But for the sake of discussion I'll agree that -- by whatever amount -- the "J" is getting the gun to full extension faster.

So why use the L?


It gives visual confirmation of the front sight straight to the target. I'm on my front sight sooner and driving it to the target with my eyes rather than relying on an index. As this thread has demonstrated, there are plenty of people who are quite serious about their shooting who don't have a good enough index to hit low% targets at speed under stress consistently.
It brings the gun up into my preferred ready position which has the gun at approximately a 45˚ angle with the front (not rear) sight in my eye-sights-target line. This ready position avoids muzzling everything in front of me as I move, provides a certain amount of protection to the head, and gives a good starting point for weapon strikes. Commonality with the ready position has benefits both in terms of efficient training time and ease of teaching.
It requires the minimum amount of free space around me to get the gun out and on target. I don't have to rely on open air two feet in front of my chest which might not be there (e.g., if a table, wall, steering wheel, or person is in the way). The gun comes up, then the gun goes out.
Along similar lines, the gun stays close to my body where I can better control and protect it until my front sight is on target and driving out.


I show and teach the "J" to people all the time for a variety of reasons. It's just a slightly different version of the press-out than the method I prefer. Some people prefer a muzzle-forward ready position and the "J" is a more natural extension than the "L" is. I've had students with shoulder issues who can't get the gun up and close to them for the "L" and thus the "J" makes more sense for them. Though these are really more issues of bringing the gun up at an angle (L) or level (J). Because when people start going fast, the exact point at which the gun comes up and the exact point at which it's level is going to depend on far too many factors to use dogmatic definitions.


Anyone who decides to have more than a passing interest in pistolcraft however would be better served with a J or index draw.

You either need to talk to some Tier One military units about how they teach this stuff or you need to change your word choice from "pistolcraft" to something a little less broad.

NickA
06-12-2012, 09:59 AM
Too much in Todd's post to quote, but in a nutshell: from a defensive shooting standpoint, being on the sights as early as possible, with a compressed ready position, seems like the best way to go to me. If you have to break a shot before full extension, you have a better chance of making a hit since you've picked up the sights. While an index draw may be marginally faster (or not), as Todd said, what if you don't have the time or room to get to extension and clean up the sight picture?
To veer out of my lane even more, I'm pretty sure Southnarc teaches to work in a retention position at the #2 point of the draw. Seems like a press out (or press-out :)) would be the most natural way to extend from that point.
Am I nuts or do I have that about right?

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

JDM
06-12-2012, 10:12 AM
Too much in Todd's post to quote, but in a nutshell: from a defensive shooting standpoint, being on the sights as early as possible, with a compressed ready position, seems like the best way to go to me. If you have to break a shot before full extension, you have a better chance of making a hit since you've picked up the sights. While an index draw may be marginally faster (or not), as Todd said, what if you don't have the time or room to get to extension and clean up the sight picture?
To veer out of my lane even more, I'm pretty sure Southnarc teaches to work in a retention position at the #2 point of the draw. Seems like a press out (or press-out :)) would be the most natural way to extend from that point.
Am I nuts or do I have that about right?

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

Very, very good points.

The world is not composed of knife wielding 3x5s threatening me at 7 yards. In a defensive situation, it may very well become necessary for me to take a shot before I'm at full extension. That shot may very well be a low probability shot for which I need my sights. If I'm on my sights as soon as possible during the draw, it stands to reason that the shot I suddenly need to take while the gun is 4 inches from my face is going to be a lot easier if every time I've drawn my gun in the last 2 years I've already seen my sights at that point.

Being able to shoot sub 3 FAST tests is awesome. Maybe the index draw is the ideal way to do that. Maybe the index draw is perfect for gun games and FASTests. Awesome. That has zero impact on how I use my gun in a life saving situation. And, after all, isn't that why everyone here has a gun stuffed in their pants?

GOP
06-12-2012, 11:07 AM
Very, very good points.

The world is not composed of knife wielding 3x5s threatening me at 7 yards. In a defensive situation, it may very well become necessary for me to take a shot before I'm at full extension. That shot may very well be a low probability shot for which I need my sights. If I'm on my sights as soon as possible during the draw, it stands to reason that the shot I suddenly need to take while the gun is 4 inches from my face is going to be a lot easier if every time I've drawn my gun in the last 2 years I've already seen my sights at that point.

Being able to shoot sub 3 FAST tests is awesome. Maybe the index draw is the ideal way to do that. Maybe the index draw is perfect for gun games and FASTests. Awesome. That has zero impact on how I use my gun in a life saving situation. And, after all, isn't that why everyone here has a gun stuffed in their pants?

I'm not disagreeing with you, I've never been in a gun fight and that isn't an area I know much about. My question is, what is the difference? Speed is a tactic. If I can be on the bad guy and shoot him in 1.1 seconds, and it takes the other person 1.1 seconds to get up to the sights and press the trigger, is there really much of a difference *in the draw time*? My experience in Force on Force shows that movement, cover, and proximity are much more important than a pure draw, although being faster is always a plus.

I think that there is so much deviation between what each individual is talking about that this thread has really become difficult to get a real bead on what "technique" is being described. To be completely honest, I don't ever worry about technique in practice or ever. I have found in various other endeavors that having a conceptual framework versus a technique-based approach is always better. I focus on getting the gun out, seeing what I need to see, and using a trigger press for the shot required every draw, I truly couldn't tell you how much of a "index" draw it is versus how much of a "press-out." All I know is that each week, my par times get lower and my shooting drills get faster. Honestly for gun games, it's just a draw. Even at a major match with 10 stages, the difference between a .6 draw (the best guy) and a 1.0 draw (a lot of guys) is only 4 seconds total. So while it is very important to master, I think the importance of the draw may be overstated somewhat.

DonovanM
06-12-2012, 11:32 AM
"Pick your nose with your rear sight" certainly demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of what I do

That may not be how you describe it, but in terms of making someone understand what kind of movement of the gun is involved in a pressout, I can't think of any better visual. And it is an accurate description, as we can see below.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v119/vehementi/pressout.jpg


If the shooter takes time to clean up the sight picture once at full extension, then the time saved getting to full extension faster doesn't really make a difference. The number of people who have an adequate index to hit even a relatively simple low% target consistently at the moment of extension is extremely small.

I disagree with the first sentence. I think instead of modulating the speed of the draw based on target difficulty, I think it is most efficient to have a fixed draw time - which is as fast as possible - on any target, while varying the amount of sight refinement that must be done at the end of it and thus the time to first shot. The time added being dependent on how skilled the shooter is in aligning their sights and how much sight refinement is needed for the target. Whether that's an index draw or more of a J is personal to the shooter.

I agree completely with the second. This is Bob/Ben/Dave level of shooting and I wouldn't ever expect anyone short of their level to be able to do that. I certainly can't.


Anyway, sorry for the tangent. Back to the tradeoff. Doing "the j" allows the gun to move along a slightly shorter path from holster to target. It's still much more than an index, but less than the "L" that I teach. You keep talking about giving up a significant amount of speed but seriously, look at the J and L on your computer screen here. The difference is tiny. It would be interesting for someone to do the math of exactly what percentage of time in a draw is gained or lost by rounding that corner a few inches one way or the other.

But for the sake of discussion I'll agree that -- by whatever amount -- the "J" is getting the gun to full extension faster.

Another point that hasn't really gotten brought up enough is the draw speed modulation inherent to what I would call the "pure pressout". What makes what I think of as the J so much faster is that there's no speed modulation and no pause as the gun is brought up into the eye-sight-target line. The gun is drawn and put on target and the sights are seen at full speed going to the target until the gun stops, where the sights are refined as much as the shot requires - which doesn't take as long as you might think for someone comparatively well practiced at it.

I don't want to pause or slow down my gun. I want to put a shot on target as reliably and quickly as possible. This is my only priority really. One of the fundamental precepts, IMO, to shooting a gun quickly and accurately is only seeing exactly what you need to see to make a shot, no more, no less. The pure pressout, to me, is over-seeing - seeing too much to make a shot.

I also do not make it a habit to put other people's techniques on a pedestal. I don't really care what Tier One operators do with their guns... it might serve as an interesting anecdote but really has very little relevance to my goals and priorities in running a handgun for any use.


the shot I suddenly need to take while the gun is 4 inches from my face is going to be a lot easier if every time I've drawn my gun in the last 2 years I've already seen my sights at that point.

I dunno about you guys but I really don't want to be clubbed in the face with the back of my slide if I need to take a shot like that. Maybe this is shortsighted of me but I don't see myself training to take anything other than an aimed shot at full extension or an unaimed shot from retention. Under any circumstance I would prefer to have my gun out and shooting as quickly as possible... Speed, surprise, violence of action, all that.

TGS
06-12-2012, 11:40 AM
I think it's interesting to note the argument presented against the index.

"Sure, it's a lot faster but it's not important to fighting in real life."

Sounds awfully similar to MT guys who aren't impressed with the fast times that iso shooters make, because "iso is for gaming and the speed isn't that important to fighting."

I'd just like to see more intelligent discourse, because iso shooters will retort about how the speed is important. So, guys, we can't really say, "Oh well a sub-3 FAST is cool but has no relevance to carrying a gun for self-defense" and then turn around the next day saying, "The speed gained from technique A is most definitely an advantage in fighting over technique B, because I can shoot the bad guy faster". The argument needs much more thought process and effort than that. :p

SouthNarc does not teach the press-out from the #2 position. In the draw that SouthNarc teaches for the application of close combat, the #2 position is a retention shooting position and leads into the #3 position, which is a compressed ready position high on the chest. In the case of carrying AIWB, the #2 position is actually bypassed unless you need to shoot inside arms distance, whereas you hit it if you're carrying at/behind the hip.

SouthNarc also teaches the press-out for a different reason than Todd does. The application of the press-out that he teaches in ECQC is centered around making consistent high-center mass hits all the way from #3 to full extension. The application of the press-out that Todd teaches centers around getting the sights aligned as early as possible for high speed hits on low-probability targets. While related, there's a difference in purpose between starting a press-out at the high-compressed ready/third eye/whatever, and the compressed ready at the sternum with techniques to hit accurately at 3 yards away even when still at the #3 and not aiming. Obviously they both share the characteristic of refining the sight picture on the way out to make consistent hits quickly, but they're not entirely the same and place emphasis on different factors.

GOP
06-12-2012, 11:50 AM
To add to what TGS says...

While we are currently equating competition shooting as only being "Gun games", often times I find many of us here saying that competition is one of the very best ways to test yourself and techniques. I also find it funny that some of the very best military shooters in the world compete often in "Gun games" and often steal the latest techniques from the best competitors. This hypocrisy is very common when someone is holding on to a technique or idea that is quickly being proven as less than optimal compared to something else. I don't want the press out to go the way of TMA guys who say things like "we don't spar hard because our techniques will kill you" or "our style doesn't work in MMA because our techniques are meant for the street." No, my 3.58 second FAST may not make me a deadly shooter on the street, but if that is the case, than what does your 5.0 or 5.5 second FAST make you?

I didn't want to speak for SN, but as TGS pointed out, he isn't teaching the press out the same way Todd is.

I know what I said above made lead to an emotional response, but I'm trying to remove that and look at this logically. I feel saying this is necessary to avoid any arguments on the forum. I'd also like to add that a lot of much better shooters than me are arguing that the press out is excellent, so I could certainly be wrong.

TGS
06-12-2012, 11:57 AM
To add to what TGS says...

While we are currently equating competition shooting as only being "Gun games", often times I find many of us here saying that competition is one of the very best ways to test yourself and techniques. This hypocrisy is very common when someone is holding on to a technique or idea that is quickly being proven as less than optimal compared to something else. I didn't want to speak for SN, but as TGS pointed out, he isn't teaching the press out the same way Todd is.

Bam! Yessum!

I liked your comment earlier about a conceptually based approach versus technique based approach.

Contextually underscored application of techniques is the answer, not "my ninjitsu is better". Use whatever ninjitsu you need to based on the context of the situation.

SouthNarc
06-12-2012, 11:58 AM
One thing that's not being discussed at all is the efficacy of a the draw stroke as it relates to a confined space.

Todd and I teach a very similiar drawstroke except I tend to run a level slide, so I'm not getting on the front sight as early as he is. Other than that, the idea of running the vertical line of presentation as close to the body as possible and then driving the horizontal line of presentation straight out is the same.

I teach the drawstroke the way that I do because a high, tabled, close to the body starting point for the horizontal line of presentation, is much better for clearing the dashboards of cars and all the shit hanging off the steering column. This also applies to bars and tables where one is sitting close to the horizontal obstruction.

A motor skill like drawstroke should obviously support fast, accurate shooting. But if one's motor skill construct has not been optimized for confined and crowded spaces then you might want to think about that issue.

Of course if drawing a gun in a confined space is not a reality for you and you're just a hobbyist then that factor in the motor skill construct is probably a moot point.

NickA
06-12-2012, 12:00 PM
I think it's interesting to note the argument presented against the index.

"Sure, it's a lot faster but it's not important to fighting in real life."

Sounds awfully similar to MT guys who aren't impressed with the fast times that iso shooters make, because "iso is for gaming and the speed isn't that important to fighting."

I'd just like to see more intelligent discourse, because iso shooters will retort about how the speed is important. So, guys, we can't really say, "Oh well a sub-3 FAST is cool but has no relevance to carrying a gun for self-defense" and then turn around the next day saying, "The speed gained from technique A is most definitely an advantage in fighting over technique B, because I can shoot the bad guy faster". The argument needs much more thought process and effort than that. :p

SouthNarc does not teach the press-out from the #2 position. In the draw that SouthNarc teaches for the application of close combat, the #2 position is a retention shooting position and leads into the #3 position, which is a compressed ready position high on the chest. In the case of carrying AIWB, the #2 position is actually bypassed unless you need to shoot inside arms distance, whereas you hit it if you're carrying at/behind the hip.

SouthNarc also teaches the press-out for a different reason than Todd does. The application of the press-out that he teaches in ECQC is centered around making consistent high-center mass hits all the way from #3 to full extension. The application of the press-out that Todd teaches centers around getting the sights aligned as early as possible for high speed hits on low-probability targets. While related, there's a difference in purpose between starting a press-out at the high-compressed ready/third eye/whatever, and the compressed ready at the sternum with techniques to hit accurately at 3 yards away even when still at the #3 and not aiming. Obviously they both share the characteristic of refining the sight picture on the way out to make consistent hits quickly, but they're not entirely the same and place emphasis on different factors.

TGS - thanks for clarifying that; sounds like I had the concept somewhat right but not the execution.
Definitely didn't mean to derail the thread into what SouthNarc teaches vs "competition" shooting, just wanted to spur some discussion on other reasons the press out or L draw might be used aside from pure speed.


Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

ToddG
06-12-2012, 12:01 PM
That may not be how you describe it, but in terms of making someone understand what kind of movement of the gun is involved in a pressout, I can't think of any better visual. And it is an accurate description, as we can see below.

The gun is below my eye, not in my nose. :cool:

You're still missing the point. The idea is to get the front sight in front of the eye early and close. Instead of picking a single moment from the video, watch the whole thing. It was a stylized example of the technique. Given how many people have found it's helped them, I'm pretty ok with it.

I noticed you failed to include this one, too, where I hit a 40% IPSC at 20yd in under 1.5s from concealment... using almost the exact same movement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaCIsjs2Wlc


I disagree with the first sentence. I think instead of modulating the speed of the draw based on target difficulty, I think it is most efficient to have a fixed draw time - which is as fast as possible - on any target, while varying the amount of sight refinement that must be done at the end of it and thus the time to first shot. The time added being dependent on how skilled the shooter is in aligning their sights and how much sight refinement is needed for the target.

OK, we disagree.

My point is that if you're going to talk about an index draw, it cannot be assessed and measured based on how fast you "click" at full extension in dry fire. If it takes time to clean up the sights and finish the trigger press once you're at extension, that time counts.

You're trying to measure from point A (holster) to point B (extension). But what really matters is getting from point A to point C (the gun going off and scoring an accurate hit). You may get to "B" faster but if you're not breaking an accurate hit then it's meaningless. And as I said, that's what I see from people all the time who spend the majority of their time working it from index to tough targets: either they break the shot at extension and have a lower percentage of hits, or they stop, aim, and press which takes a lot more time.

Put another way, having "B" and "C" the exact same moment saves time over having a delay between "B" and "C" ... so then the question becomes whether you're getting to "B" so much faster that you still have time to aim and break the shot before I ever get to "B."


Another point that hasn't really gotten brought up enough is the draw speed modulation inherent to what I would call the "pure pressout". What makes what I think of as the J so much faster is that there's no speed modulation and no pause as the gun is brought up into the eye-sight-target line. The gun is drawn and put on target and the sights are seen at full speed going to the target until the gun stops, where the sights are refined as much as the shot requires - which doesn't take as long as you might think for someone comparatively well practiced at it.

You're making it difficult because you keep giving me this moving target. Now it's what you call "speed modulation" that is the problem?

Again, I think you're arguing against a straw man. Anyone who's ever been in a class with me has heard me say that if the shot isn't ready to break at full extension, they should fix it and fire. The exception is when practicing to improve the press-out. If you're trying to improve the press-out to get the advantage of breaking the shot at extension. Because as I said above, no matter how you want to slice it, once you get to extension it is irrefutably faster to break the shot that moment than wait to fix things.

I "modulate my speed" just like I do when I'm pulling the trigger or lining up the sights any other time. When I've got an easy shot, I can be rough and sloppy and things don't have to be perfect. When I have a tough shot, I have less margin for error and need to do things more precisely. Precision takes time. You'll drive slower on a 7' wide curvy road than you will a 20' wide straight line. Driving around a tight curve at full speed and then hitting the breaks afterwards isn't necessarily the right solution. :cool:


I don't want to pause or slow down my gun. I want to put a shot on target as reliably and quickly as possible. This is my only priority really.

But you do pause. You pause at the end instead of slowing down on the way there. I've found the opposite, but when I rush the extension faster than I should I, too, have to pause and correct before breaking the shot. I don't see that as a positive thing.


I dunno about you guys but I really don't want to be clubbed in the face with the back of my slide if I need to take a shot like that.

No one suggested taking a shot from that position. That's just another assumption you made without really understanding what's being discussed. Rather than tell everyone they're wrong, how about asking questions when you don't understand something?

SouthNarc
06-12-2012, 12:02 PM
Well shit.....cross posted with TGS and Nick.

ToddG
06-12-2012, 12:08 PM
I'm not the least bit opposed to competition. Plenty of what I teach -- hell, what everyone who knows what they're doing teaches -- comes from the competition world. But there's a very dangerous line between "it works best in competition" and "it works best." And this is a great example. The drawstroke that might work best under ideal circumstance isn't necessarily the one that will work best in less than ideal circumstances. When a competitive shooter needs to shoot from a seated position with a table or steering wheel in front of him, he gets to sit there and think about it first... sometimes for many minutes. If I have to shoot from the front seat of my car, I'm not going to have a warning and a chance to think about which of my draw techniques I want to use, or how I need to make little adjustments, etc.

Another great example is transitions. To be a good gamer you need to have excellent transitions... it's a huge part of what separates the top guys from the also-rans. One aspect of having good transitions is the whole "move your eyes then gun" thing. You need to practice that if you're going to be great at it in a game. But outside of the game arena, it becomes a completely wasted skill because "eyes move before the gun" is something everyone does automatically anyway. When you've shot the first BG you are necessarily going to have to find and assess the second one, even if it takes just a fraction of a second. And because your eyes move substantially faster than your gun can, "eyes then gun" happens all by itself.

GJM
06-12-2012, 12:10 PM
Hobbyist is a tough word.

SouthNarc
06-12-2012, 12:25 PM
Hobbyist is a tough word.

Really? Sure wasn't trying to talk tough.

TGS
06-12-2012, 12:25 PM
Well shit.....cross posted with TGS and Nick.

Cross-posting is okay. There's much worse things, like crossing swords.

SouthNarc
06-12-2012, 12:26 PM
Cross-posting is okay. There's much worse things, like crossing swords.

In the shower!

TGS
06-12-2012, 12:30 PM
Plenty of what I teach -- hell, what everyone who knows what they're doing teaches -- comes from the competition world.

I'd beg to differ.


When a competitive shooter needs to shoot from a seated position with a table or steering wheel in front of him, he gets to sit there and think about it first... sometimes for many minutes. If I have to shoot from the front seat of my car, I'm not going to have a warning and a chance to think about which of my draw techniques I want to use, or how I need to make little adjustments, etc.


This is interesting coming from you. Maybe AFHF is different, but the courses I've taken with you have not placed technique for close-quarter combat as a factor in why you teach what you teach.....whatsoever. In fact, the way you demonstrated to us why the press-out is superior to the index is by making shots with both techniques and comparing the times, and noting that on the 20 yard plate rack only the dudes using press-outs made their first hit (which was the point for me where I was seriously turned onto the press-out).

TGS
06-12-2012, 12:31 PM
In the shower!

I forsee a Shivworks line of BustedTee's products coming soon....

NickA
06-12-2012, 12:33 PM
Well shit.....cross posted with TGS and Nick.

Glad you did, and apologies for kinda misrepresenting your technique there.





With a different emphasis, though - the reason for a vertical first leg of travel vs. the reason for a straight-ish horizontal second leg. As I've said before, I found the draw in a confined space-type exercises in ECQC to be very illuminating, and persuasive for me and my situation.
Exactly. And I think what I was trying to get at is that even though the emphasis is different, they complement each other. The straight vertical leg allows for clearing obstacles or keeping the gun away from a grab. It also sets up the straight horizontal leg, letting you pick up the sights earlier. You can then press out for a precise shot, or shoot from the 3 if you have to.
It just SEEMS to offer more options for when you can make the shot, but as I said, I'm a bit out of my lane here.


Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

SouthNarc
06-12-2012, 12:36 PM
Glad you did, and apologies for kinda misrepresenting your technique there.


You're fine Nick!

ToddG
06-12-2012, 12:37 PM
In the shower!

I'm just trying to figure out which one of you is Archer...
http://cs507222.userapi.com/u24281494/video/l_655bda53.jpg


I'd beg to differ.

OK. :confused:


This is interesting coming from you.

AFHF definitely isn't a "close quarter combat" class. That doesn't mean I ignore such stuff when deciding what I do (or why I teach it). Since AFHF is about the technical aspect of shooting, I talk about why the press-out has advantages from a technical shooting standpoint... specifically in contrast to the index. The distinction that Donovan wants to make between his "J" and my "L" isn't even a drop in the bucket in comparison.

TCinVA
06-12-2012, 01:51 PM
Hobbyist is a tough word.

People come at this shooting thing from very different places. There's a lot of overlap between the combat and competition sides of the house because a lot of it is focused on the same thing: Intelligently directing bullets into a selected target as quickly as possible. That tends to win trophies and gunfights.

That being said, there are places where a particular technique that works great in one arena might not be so good in the other one. That's just the reality of two very different endeavors.


To add to what TGS says...

While we are currently equating competition shooting as only being "Gun games", often times I find many of us here saying that competition is one of the very best ways to test yourself and techniques. I also find it funny that some of the very best military shooters in the world compete often in "Gun games" and often steal the latest techniques from the best competitors. This hypocrisy is very common when someone is holding on to a technique or idea that is quickly being proven as less than optimal compared to something else. I don't want the press out to go the way of TMA guys who say things like "we don't spar hard because our techniques will kill you" or "our style doesn't work in MMA because our techniques are meant for the street." No, my 3.58 second FAST may not make me a deadly shooter on the street, but if that is the case, than what does your 5.0 or 5.5 second FAST make you?

I didn't want to speak for SN, but as TGS pointed out, he isn't teaching the press out the same way Todd is.

I know what I said above made lead to an emotional response, but I'm trying to remove that and look at this logically. I feel saying this is necessary to avoid any arguments on the forum. I'd also like to add that a lot of much better shooters than me are arguing that the press out is excellent, so I could certainly be wrong.

Maybe I'm missing a post, but in looking back I don't recall anyone arguing that the pressout is more "tactical" and thus more awesomer on that basis. All I ever said was that those who are at the very elite level may be able to do things that we who aren't batting in their league cannot. If they take an aimed shot, they have to aim. Because of talent, superior ability to process relevant visual input at speed, and unbelievable amounts of practice someone like Rob Leatham may be able to present/pause/press on an aimed shot far faster than I can do a press out. This is not surprising because he's Rob bloody Leatham.

I, on the other hand, cannot go from gun in the holster to hit on the target faster by using that method. I know because I've tried. The fastest path from gun in the holster to bullet hole where I want one involves some form of press-out. On a 1" square it might be a textbook perfect pressout with a time from buzzer to fired shot of 1.8 seconds. On an 8" IDPA A zone it may be a much less careful/precise one with a time under 1.5. Not barn burning speed, but faster than I can manage when I try to whip the gun out to an index. If I could reliably put a bullet on target faster with an index type draw I'd use that...but I can't. I'm not alone in that. Since the technique gets me better results than other techniques and since I've seen it produce results in lots of shooters who try it ranging from Todd's students to people I've coached, it seems to have some merit.

GOP
06-12-2012, 02:10 PM
I'm not the least bit opposed to competition. Plenty of what I teach -- hell, what everyone who knows what they're doing teaches -- comes from the competition world. But there's a very dangerous line between "it works best in competition" and "it works best." And this is a great example. The drawstroke that might work best under ideal circumstance isn't necessarily the one that will work best in less than ideal circumstances. When a competitive shooter needs to shoot from a seated position with a table or steering wheel in front of him, he gets to sit there and think about it first... sometimes for many minutes. If I have to shoot from the front seat of my car, I'm not going to have a warning and a chance to think about which of my draw techniques I want to use, or how I need to make little adjustments, etc.

Another great example is transitions. To be a good gamer you need to have excellent transitions... it's a huge part of what separates the top guys from the also-rans. One aspect of having good transitions is the whole "move your eyes then gun" thing. You need to practice that if you're going to be great at it in a game. But outside of the game arena, it becomes a completely wasted skill because "eyes move before the gun" is something everyone does automatically anyway. When you've shot the first BG you are necessarily going to have to find and assess the second one, even if it takes just a fraction of a second. And because your eyes move substantially faster than your gun can, "eyes then gun" happens all by itself.

I think you make some excellent points here as well, especially on transitions.

Really, I think competition of all types shines because it encouragers practitioners to train more, plain and simple. I'm a huge fan of competing. It enables you to put your skills to the test under more realistic amounts of stress, and you get to see where you stack up versus the other competitors. I've competed in everything from basketball, to shooting, to BJJ, and I have found that the individuals who compete are almost always better than those that don't because they continue training hard for the next competition. Nothing is a better motivator than putting it on the line in front of your peers. I have a 5k race coming up in the next few months, and I know that it is motivating me to push my runs even harder so that I can do well. I'm about to start Kali, and I plan to eventually make it to a Dog Brothers Gathering, which will be even more motivation for me to train hard. Do any of these competitions mimic exactly what would happen in a life or death struggle? Probably not, no. Do they make you extremely prepared for that while enabling you to have some fun in the process? Yes.

So whether or not Bob Vogel uses a legit press out or not, I don't want to find myself in a gun fight with him, because he would most likely burn me to the ground in the process. Press out or not. .6 seconds to a bad guy gives that person a lot of time to "adjust the sights and squeeze the trigger" if the bad guy's draw is 1.5 seconds.

BaiHu
06-12-2012, 02:18 PM
1. Great thread that has this noob thinking more about his practice.

2. FWIW, the press-out is best for me, b/c a) I like having a holistic method to draw a gun effectively in the 3D world for all the reasons SN and Todd have mentioned, it is my preferred method of practice and b) I'm not into the gaming side of pistolcraft where I can get away with a straight line. Will I eventually get into the gaming, maybe.

3. I do recognize that the gamer camp, S/D camp, 'J'/'L'/The-Artist-formerly-known-as-Prince camp will 'cross swords' over this. However, this is a good thing-without a hammer and anvil, the sword never gets formed.

4. At some point, I would imagine the press out becomes your index, no? Meaning, once your body knows how to get to where the eye is pointing at, I would imagine it becomes less tasking and more efficient/automatic. As Todd said, any 'cleaning up of the sights' will happen along the horizontal if you are hitting a more difficult shot.

5. Regarding the Bruce Lee quote, I believe this is a valid point to make in this discussion, but I believe Bruce Lee could have been clearer in his statement. Specifically looking at the last sentence, "Before I studied the art, a punch is just like a punch, a kick just like a kick." The understood the art part is ENORMOUS and yet the sentence doesn't do it justice. The weight of the knowledge behind the intracacies of a punch/kick is so unlike the first part of this quote. You literally can't encapsulate the knowledge gained in that sentence unless you wrote it like this:

"...Before I studied the art, a punch to me was just like a punch, a kick just like a kick. After I learned the art, a punch was no longer a punch, a kick no longer a kick. Now that I've understood the art, a punch is just like a punch, a kick just like a kick."

The teacher takes you out of your comfort zone in order for you to learn something new. The student must make the information comfortable through massive numbers of repetition, only then does it become 'natural' and part of the student's movement lexicon so they consistently perform a technique correctly and unconsciously.

Disclaimer: I'm just a noob in the gun world, but I think I understand methods of teaching body mechanics well. That being said, feel free to ignore me or engage me. Either way:

http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx38/djdemarco/Pistol%20Forum/IllBeBack.jpg

JHC
06-12-2012, 03:24 PM
Again I will stress that I am not a competition shooter and there are many great pistol guys here that would smoke me. Having said that, I may be a bit different in that I train and perform a variety of methods for many functions including the draw / presentation, while many might keep things narrowed down a bit more so they can focus more on less. For myself I use more than one draw and presentation which is dictated by the situation that I am facing. Factors may include but not be limited to time, distance, cover, static, moving, in coming fire, etc... In my shooting and video's I can clearly be seen using a press out as usually described on this forum or I can be seen using more of a 45* style as described by the competition comments. In all honesty I really don't think about it, it just happens. I will add that due to my body structure and having 3 shoulder surgeries, a high press out starting close to my head and eyes is a bit difficult.

Surf,
Some of the discussion contrasts the two basic methods as one way or the other. You however indicate you may apply one or the other situationally.
My sense is that some portion of conventional wisdom assumes you WILL do it one way - the way you've been habituated to do it.

When I'm going flat out for speed on the timer I end up index-ish like the 45 degree you describe . . . I think: http://www.flickr.com/photos/78036189@N07/7301475234/
This is a habit born of starting on the draw all the way back around 1970 as a kid reading No Second Place Winner. But in matches all amped up I've had to draw in tight quarters and I didn't ram my front sight into a barrier, I pulled up higher (nose picking style) to clear the cover.

Am I reading you correctly that you've concluded you can make these adjustments situationally in a critical incident?

fuse
06-12-2012, 03:55 PM
But being able to do it sometimes on the range isn't the same as being able to do it consistently on demand.



I wish folks could get this. I mean really, really, understand it. its so simple. It would make the world such a nicer place.

GJM
06-12-2012, 04:10 PM
Oh, so you mean there is a distinction between I have done it at least once, and I can do it most every time? :)

EmanP
06-12-2012, 04:13 PM
So forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't this just the old 'my kung-fu is better than yours' argument? Same as the 45acp is better than 9mm and all the others? Ultimately, it's not the technique that matters, but the practitioner. To say that one technique is better than another without any true way of measuring it is fruitless and mearly a measure of pride in a given technique. We may as well be talking about reloading in front of your face or lower around your body. It'll result in the exact same discussion with several examples of people doing it super fast both ways with a pro and con list of why you should or shouldn't do it that way. If we just want the list, that's one thing, but can one definitely say that one is better than another? To be able to do something 100% 100% of the time is always going to be slower than being able to do it.

Patrick Scott
06-12-2012, 04:33 PM
So forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't this just the old 'my kung-fu is better than yours' argument? Same as the 45acp is better than 9mm and all the others? Ultimately, it's not the technique that matters, but the practitioner. To say that one technique is better than another without any true way of measuring it is fruitless and mearly a measure of pride in a given technique. We may as well be talking about reloading in front of your face or lower around your body. It'll result in the exact same discussion with several examples of people doing it super fast both ways with a pro and con list of why you should or shouldn't do it that way. If we just want the list, that's one thing, but can one definitely say that one is better than another? To be able to do something 100% 100% of the time is always going to be slower than being able to do it.

+1, How can we measure any of this stuff we do?

My take on all of this is that all of these techniques are constantly evolving, we should never stick with anything. What happens when something stops evolving??? It dies, plain and simple.

Patrick Scott
06-12-2012, 05:06 PM
"You're trying to measure from point A (holster) to point B (extension). But what really matters is getting from point A to point C (the gun going off and scoring an accurate hit). You may get to "B" faster but if you're not breaking an accurate hit then it's meaningless. And as I said, that's what I see from people all the time who spend the majority of their time working it from index to tough targets: either they break the shot at extension and have a lower percentage of hits, or they stop, aim, and press which takes a lot more time"

Help me out with something here.. I have talked to and been schooled(in person and phone and net) by USPSA GM's and M's using irons and optics and when talking about the draw to first shot. The consensus is always stop-aim-press. What gives? Now when I hear that from an Open shooter is carries a lot of weight. There is no reason he/she couldnt pull the trigger any where in the draw once the dot is on target, but he/she still stop-aim-press.

joshs
06-12-2012, 05:19 PM
Help me out with something here.. I have talked to and been schooled(in person and phone and net) by USPSA GM's and M's using irons and optics and when talking about the draw to first shot. The consensus is always stop-aim-press. What gives? Now when I hear that from an Open shooter is carries a lot of weight. There is no reason he/she couldnt pull the trigger any where in the draw once the dot is on target, but he/she still stop-aim-press.

I wouldn't call it consensus. Here is a thread (http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=57206) on BE's forum from 2007 discussing the exact same topic. In the thread, an M class Open shooter and a GM Production shooter both advocate an "inverted L" type draw.

Kimura
06-12-2012, 05:20 PM
So forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't this just the old 'my kung-fu is better than yours' argument? Same as the 45acp is better than 9mm and all the others? Ultimately, it's not the technique that matters, but the practitioner. To say that one technique is better than another without any true way of measuring it is fruitless and mearly a measure of pride in a given technique. We may as well be talking about reloading in front of your face or lower around your body. It'll result in the exact same discussion with several examples of people doing it super fast both ways with a pro and con list of why you should or shouldn't do it that way. If we just want the list, that's one thing, but can one definitely say that one is better than another? To be able to do something 100% 100% of the time is always going to be slower than being able to do it.

Not the way I'm understanding the discussion. It's more what works in gun games may not necessarily be the best tactic in a gun fight. Here's how I see it from my perspective. My index draw is quicker than my press out. Right now the press out is new to me, so there's no getting around that. Now, this is the case because I break the shot, irregardless of my draw, at full extension. However, press out means I see my sights sooner, meaning a couple of things; first, I don't get onto the trigger until I see my sight picture in front of me. You may call that slow, I call it safe. Because while I love shooting against a clock, I'm a defense minded shooter and getting on the trigger before then increases the likelihood of putting a bullet in the wrong person. Pat McNamara says safety on, finger off the trigger until you have a sight picture. This is also the way I was trained and I agree with this philosophy. Second, if I have to break the shot earlier than full extension, I'm in a better position to do so. And while index is faster, all the talk of starting to break the shot prior to having some sort of sight picture is fine for competition, but, IMHO, not fine in real life. Also, as Todd has mentioned, with the press out, I'm not going to sweep everyone and his or her grandmother with my muzzle. Makes a difference to me. Finally, as has been discussed earlier, press out works better when you have limited space.

IMHO, press out offers advantages in the real world that may not be a benefit in gun games. Similar to things that might work in a traditional Karate tournament, do not necessarily translate well to the cage. Because there is more freedom in the cage, more allowed in the cage, therefore it's closer to real life. And yes, I've done both, so I do know the difference. My point is that not everything works everywhere. Some things are better for gaming purposes. Not to say they're useless in every real life situation, meaning they just aren't the best choice. Just my opinion.

JV_
06-12-2012, 05:20 PM
Not too long ago I trained with John Holschen at Insights. He teaches a press-out, but he prefers to not elevate the muzzle. His draw stroke is L shaped. I suspect his preference for the horizontal muzzle is partially the result of him using an RDS (Glock 19) and elevating the muzzle would make it harder to track the dot since it would be out of view (initially).

We also talked about breaking the shot early, before full extension. IIRC, he said breaking the shot before full extension, as long as your sights were aligned, was a natural next step - I think he used the phrase "evolutionary step".

ToddG
06-12-2012, 05:24 PM
Really, I think competition of all types shines because it encouragers practitioners to train more, plain and simple.

Absolutely. Most people will put more effort into the game they know they are playing next weekend than the fight they might (but come on, probably not) get in sometime down the road. Competition allows people to experience some stress, deal with a shooting problem not of their own making, and push themselves to improve in an objective way. Can you get there without competition? Sure. But in my opinion, competition has a definite place in shooting development.


So whether or not Bob Vogel uses a legit press out or not, I don't want to find myself in a gun fight with him, because he would most likely burn me to the ground in the process. Press out or not. .6 seconds to a bad guy gives that person a lot of time to "adjust the sights and squeeze the trigger" if the bad guy's draw is 1.5 seconds.

I'd say that's pretty obvious. :cool: If someone can do it in 0.6 seconds (regardless of how) he's going to be faster than the guy who can do it in 1.5 seconds.




4. At some point, I would imagine the press out becomes your index, no? Meaning, once your body knows how to get to where the eye is pointing at, I would imagine it becomes less tasking and more efficient/automatic. As Todd said, any 'cleaning up of the sights' will happen along the horizontal if you are hitting a more difficult shot.

That's true of anything. Again, I'll draw us back to the trigger press analogy. A beginner may have to be very conscious and focused on the movement of the trigger for a shot that an experienced shooter would take without any thought at all.

And thanks for the clarification on the Bruce Lee quote.


Oh, so you mean there is a distinction between I have done it at least once, and I can do it most every time? :)

Apparently only to some people. :cool:


It'll result in the exact same discussion with several examples of people doing it super fast both ways with a pro and con list of why you should or shouldn't do it that way. If we just want the list, that's one thing, but can one definitely say that one is better than another?

Exactly right. This thread and so many like it around here lately have been about people who want to crusade against something because they're certain their way is superior. Luckily, a lot of people have been able to point out the pros and cons of multiple approaches. None of them is perfect. But discussing and understanding the strengths and weaknesses helps people evaluate what makes the most sense given their needs, priorities, and capabilities.

Patrick Scott
06-12-2012, 05:26 PM
I wouldn't call it consensus. Here is a thread (http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=57206) on BE's forum from 2007 discussing the exact same topic. In the thread, an M class Open shooter and a GM Production shooter both advocate an "inverted L" type draw.

I 'm not speaking to one element of the press out, I am talking on the whole. Do you think the press out is popular among top level shooters?

Patrick Scott
06-12-2012, 06:16 PM
Not too long ago I trained with John Holschen at Insights. He teaches a press-out, but he prefers to not elevate the muzzle. His draw stroke is L shaped. I suspect his preference for the horizontal muzzle is partially the result of him using an RDS (Glock 19) and elevating the muzzle would make it harder to track the dot since it would be out of view (initially).

We also talked about breaking the shot early, before full extension. IIRC, he said breaking the shot before full extension, as long as your sights were aligned, was a natural next step - I think he used the phrase "evolutionary step".

If its the next evolutionary step, then why do users of the press out go to extension at all? Why bother?

joshs
06-12-2012, 06:24 PM
I 'm not speaking to one element of the press out

Neither were they, if you read the thread, you'll see they discuss many of the same benefits as discussed in this thread.


Do you think the press-out is popular among top level shooters?

Since we were talking about USPSA shooters, I'm assuming you mean top level USPSA shooters. I think some elements of the press-out are used by top level USPSA shooters. Such as getting the gun level and moving straight at some point before extension and beginning the trigger press before the gun reaches extension. I think keeping the gun close to your body while it is moving up is less applicable to competitive shooting, so it is not something that is used or taught by most top level USPSA shooters.

Patrick Scott
06-12-2012, 06:38 PM
Neither were they, if you read the thread, you'll see they discuss many of the same benefits as discussed in this thread.



Since we were talking about USPSA shooters, I'm assuming you mean top level USPSA shooters. I think some elements of the press-out are used by top level USPSA shooters. Such as getting the gun level and moving straight at some point before extension and beginning the trigger press before the gun reaches extension. I think keeping the gun close to your body while it is moving up is less applicable to competitive shooting, so it is not something that is used or taught by most top level USPSA shooters.

I think its easy to defend the press out by saying "I think some elements of the press-out are used by top level USPSA shooters". Way to easy in fact. Of course some elements are used. We are reaching for the same goal. Gun from holster to bang on target. If you are going to be that broad, then hip shooting uses elements of the press out.

Zhurdan
06-12-2012, 06:50 PM
If its the next evolutionary step, then why do users of the press out go to extension at all? Why bother?

Because extension means recoil control for the rest of your shots.

Being I started the "Press-out or Punch-out" thread, I thought I'd interject with my findings thus far. The press-out is faster to the first shot if I'm practicing it. The punch-out is faster if I'm going for sheer speed. To clarify, I've been doing the punch-out (index) for 14+ years and the press-out for less than one year. My body knows where to go with the punch-out... FOR NOW.

I'm going to continue working on the press-out as I find it has merit... WHEN TRAINED enough. Right now, I'm no where near what I'd call proficient with it, unless I'm calm, go over it in my mind before the string of fire, and focus intently on the process. Whereas, I've done the punch-out (index) for so long, I can get on target and follow up a shot lickity split (phrasing!!!). It'll take time. It took me years to get to where I'm at now, I'm sure it'll take just as long to get good with the press-out too.

LOKNLOD
06-12-2012, 06:58 PM
If its the next evolutionary step, then why do users of the press out go to extension at all? Why bother?

Because the subsequent shots are best accomplished from extension? I think discussion of the shots after the first are tangential at best to the discussion of draw-to-first-shot techniques.

Patrick Scott
06-12-2012, 07:00 PM
I wonder what would be faster/more accurate. Press-out shot+Extension shot or 2 Extension shots.

Seems to me that fucking with your draw and touching one off early and then touching one off in the proper position would be slower than getting your shit to the right position off the bat and cranking 2 as fast as you can track it. Your eyes are way faster than everything else.

TGS
06-12-2012, 07:09 PM
I wonder what would be faster/more accurate. Press-out shot+Extension shot or 2 Extension shots.

Seems to me that fucking with your draw and touching one off early and then touching one off in the proper position would be slower than getting your shit to the right position off the bat and cranking 2 as fast as you can track it. Your eyes are way faster than everything else.

The #3 position, all the way to extension, are proper shooting positions depending on the target at hand. It's not "F---ing with your draw" if it's a technique you practice as taught by people who've had experience doing it to other human beings and are extremely well-respected trainers because of their well-thought out techniques which have been used successfully to solve problems.

Are you another one of the Ben Stoeger trolls?

LOKNLOD
06-12-2012, 07:14 PM
I wonder what would be faster/more accurate. Press-out shot+Extension shot or 2 Extension shots.


It could be a fair question to measure times to shoot pairs, especially in the context of competition, where a nice pair lets you move to the next target quicker (as opposed to other pursuits where a nice pair will keep you hanging around...).


Your eyes are way faster than everything else.

I wish! My vision might be the exception because I'm damn near blind, but my hands can shoot the gun faster than I can see.

Patrick Scott
06-12-2012, 07:18 PM
The #3 position, all the way to extension, are proper shooting positions depending on the target at hand. It's not "fucking with your draw" if it's a technique you practice as taught by people who've had experience doing it to other human beings and are extremely well-respected trainers because of their well-thought out techniques which have been used successfully to solve problems.

Are you another one of the Ben Stoeger trolls?

Yes

Patrick Scott
06-12-2012, 07:21 PM
It could be a fair question to measure times to shoot pairs, especially in the context of competition, where a nice pair lets you move to the next target quicker (as opposed to other pursuits where a nice pair will keep you hanging around...).



I wish! My vision might be the exception because I'm damn near blind, but my hands can shoot the gun faster than I can see.

Bingo, someone need to prove to me that spits will be faster one way or the other.
I call my shots, no need to hang around.

Since you are the exception, your data point is invalid.

ToddG
06-12-2012, 08:01 PM
I wonder what would be faster/more accurate. Press-out shot+Extension shot or 2 Extension shots.

Again, you guys are making a straw man to attack. JV said one guy -- someone who isn't participating in this thread and isn't even on this forum -- suggested that in his opinion the "evolution" of the press-out was a shot before extension. That doesn't suddenly make it the official all-encompassing and exclusive definition of a press-out.

Also, please see -- and abide by -- our rules regarding profanity.

YVK
06-12-2012, 09:27 PM
If we just want the list, that's one thing, but can one definitely say that one is better than another? To be able to do something 100% 100% of the time is always going to be slower than being able to do it.

You're right, this may very well come down to making a list and setting priorities. We can't say what's better because we can't rally agree on a definition of better. Faster, more reproducible under different conditions, more reproducible across different triggers, better for the draw in confined space - each of these have different weights for different people, and many can be disputed as far as which technique is superior. For some people it is preponderance of their own beliefs, experiences and "evidence". For others it is a "single issue voting". For example, when a top-of-the-line shooter who runs a DA/SA trigger and subscribes to present-pause-press admits to working the trigger before setting his sights on the target when pushing speed...


Ben, so I understand you correctly: you're shooting DA/SA with the first shot being DA, and you are getting a sight picture first, before even starting a trigger pull?

From a practical example, that barrage of sub-3 FASTs, your hammer didn't start moving back until you had your sight on those 3x5(or 4) cards?


The second half of my post answered that. When I am pushing hard, I cut corners. Most of the time, it is sight picture and then trigger press.

...that invalidates the technique for my priorities and given my choice of a pistol (in my particular case, any pistol, actually).

Similarly, being able to do stuff 100% of the time vs being able to do stuff is a personal priority as well.

scooterj
06-12-2012, 09:57 PM
There are 3 kinds of shooters

1st is the "hunter/casual plinker", one trip to the range every couple of month, or so. None of this means a hill of beans to him.

2nd is the "competition shooter", press-out is a good tool for learning to draw correctly, but a "competitive" shooter will modify the draw stroke to fit his needs and abilities.

3rd is the "training ninja". These guys take classes with self defense instructors as often as possible and "if" the press-out is taught, they'll consider it gospel.

Does the press-out have merit? Yes
Is it the best way to get the 1st shot off? There is no "BEST". What may be best for one will not be best for another.

DocGKR
06-12-2012, 10:06 PM
scooterj--you left off the 4th type of shooter and the only ones I truly care about: military and LE shooters who use firearms as tools to ensure the safety of the innocents they are protecting, cover their colleagues, and come home safely at the end of their time of duty.

scooterj
06-12-2012, 10:10 PM
scooterj--you left off the 4th type of shooter and the only ones I truly care about: military and LE shooters who use firearms as tools to ensure the safety of the innocents they are protecting, cover their colleagues, and come home safely at the end of their time of duty.

You are correct. I was only thinking about the guys who don't use their firearms to earn a living. (Yes, I know that there are a handful of guys and gals that earn a living shooting in competition. But there aren't enough of them to create another class)

TCinVA
06-12-2012, 10:17 PM
The trainer thing is ironic because I've trained with most of the big names in the industry and it's a fair mix between those who do something akin to a press out and those who do the present/pause/press method.

Sometimes the instructors themselves change positions on it over a period of time.

DonovanM
06-12-2012, 11:25 PM
You're still missing the point. The idea is to get the front sight in front of the eye early and close. Instead of picking a single moment from the video, watch the whole thing. It was a stylized example of the technique. Given how many people have found it's helped them, I'm pretty ok with it.

No, I totally get the point. I understand completely what the pressout entails and I have seen the entire video :)


I noticed you failed to include this one, too, where I hit a 40% IPSC at 20yd in under 1.5s from concealment... using almost the exact same movement.


Well, if I was linking every video of a pressout ever made that may be true, but all I was doing was highlighting what I meant when I said "picking your nose with the rear sight".

I guess since we're posting videos of the capabilities of our various draw techniques, here's a video of me doing the same exact thing - a tougher target at the same distance in the same time with the same gear. This is me shooting under match pressure, where I don't generally throw out wild inconsistent shots. It's been known to happen though, especially since as we know, accuracy is apparently at a premium in USPSA competition...

On a good day I might be your average A class USPSA shooter. Todd you've probably been shooting 10x as long as I have and shoot easily 10x as much ammo per year as I have total downrange in my entire lifetime, but yet here is an example of us turning in essentially identical performances. Why would this be? I would argue it is because of the unnecessary complication of the L-shaped pressout which requires a longer amount of time and greater degree of effort to master than a more standard draw style, where the speed of the gun moving isn't modulated and the lion's share of the sight alignment is done at full extension.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0z0lY0lfB0


OK, we disagree.

My point is that if you're going to talk about an index draw, it cannot be assessed and measured based on how fast you "click" at full extension in dry fire. If it takes time to clean up the sights and finish the trigger press once you're at extension, that time counts.

You're trying to measure from point A (holster) to point B (extension). But what really matters is getting from point A to point C (the gun going off and scoring an accurate hit). You may get to "B" faster but if you're not breaking an accurate hit then it's meaningless. And as I said, that's what I see from people all the time who spend the majority of their time working it from index to tough targets: either they break the shot at extension and have a lower percentage of hits, or they stop, aim, and press which takes a lot more time.

Put another way, having "B" and "C" the exact same moment saves time over having a delay between "B" and "C" ... so then the question becomes whether you're getting to "B" so much faster that you still have time to aim and break the shot before I ever get to "B."

You keep telling me I don't understand what we're arguing about, yet you dismiss the fact that I brought up this exact thing in my last post?

Just so we're clear, I feel like I'm reiterating this, but maybe not:

With an L shaped pressout, you can break the shot comparatively sooner after full extension. The problem is, it takes longer to get to full extension both because of the longer distance traveled AND the modulation of speed based on the difficulty of the shot.

With a more straightforward draw, it takes longer after full extension to make the same shot. But I believe this is more than made up for by the decreased time to full extension and the relatively small amount of time it would take for a reasonably competent shooter to actually align the sights for a hard shot.

I don't like discussing speed by itself because I think it's a natural byproduct of mastery when everything else is taken care of and you're dead nuts consistent - or at least that's how I think it should be treated. But when you handicap yourself so badly on a not insignificant sub-skill of shooting by unnecessarily and inefficiently complicating things, I think it warrants some amount of discussion. I don't know why someone just decided one day that breaking the shot at the moment of full extension was preferable as opposed to pausing. Just doesn't make sense to me.

Even though it's a gross misrepresentation of Occam's Razor, I still like to think that the simplest approach to a problem is the best. As I've said, I think the further one gets away from just drawing the gun and putting it on the target the worse off they are. I feel that when approached with a problem like having to draw in the confines of a vehicle, this "competition shooter" - as I've apparently been labeled - will simply draw the gun and put it on target, as that's what I've trained to do - through ports, while moving, around barricades, going prone, crouching, etc.


No one suggested taking a shot from that position. That's just another assumption you made without really understanding what's being discussed. Rather than tell everyone they're wrong, how about asking questions when you don't understand something?

BOM did in the post I quoted, when he said if he had to take a shot 4 inches from his face then it would be easier because he was used to doing the pressout. I am not planning on ever doing this.

DonovanM
06-12-2012, 11:33 PM
In fact, the way you demonstrated to us why the press-out is superior to the index is by making shots with both techniques and comparing the times, and noting that on the 20 yard plate rack only the dudes using press-outs made their first hit (which was the point for me where I was seriously turned onto the press-out).

I don't really think this is the best way to evaluate techniques. For one, since the instructor is biased for one particular technique and obviously way more familiar with it, his times will be skewed in favor of his favored technique, even if he intended to be impartial.

I also wouldn't put much stock into that "only the dudes using pressouts made their first hit". Not only are we dealing with potentially incredibly variable levels of skill, but just because someone didn't see enough to make a shot doesn't mean they're using the wrong draw technique. This is a fundamentals problem... has nothing to do with their draw.

JDM
06-12-2012, 11:39 PM
BOM did in the post I quoted, when he said if he had to take a shot 4 inches from his face then it would be easier because he was used to doing the pressout. I am not planning on ever doing this.

That really should've read "8 inches, or 11 inches, or any distance that isn't full extension" as in: I may need to shoot something, in a very precise manner, without the option of having the gun at full extension while doing so. Chalk the 4 inches thing up to poor number choice.

ToddG
06-12-2012, 11:55 PM
I guess since we're posting videos of the capabilities of our various draw techniques, here's a video of me doing the same exact thing - a tougher target at the same distance in the same time with the same gear. This is me shooting under match pressure, where I don't generally throw out wild inconsistent shots. It's been known to happen though, especially since as we know, accuracy is apparently at a premium in USPSA competition...

USPSA but you were shooting from concealment?

Also, you say it's the "same time" but I didn't hear them announce what your time to that first shot was.


With an L shaped pressout, you can break the shot comparatively sooner after full extension. The problem is, it takes longer to get to full extension both because of the longer distance traveled AND the modulation of speed based on the difficulty of the shot.

You base this on what? How do you know it takes longer? How much time does this new bugaboo "modulation of speed" add to the draw?


I also wouldn't put much stock into that "only the dudes using pressouts made their first hit". Not only are we dealing with potentially incredibly variable levels of skill, but just because someone didn't see enough to make a shot doesn't mean they're using the wrong draw technique. This is a fundamentals problem... has nothing to do with their draw.

Again humor! First you wanted to compare single instances on video as definitive, then you tell someone who saw (how many?) shooters perform task (how many times?) that he doesn't have enough data. You weren't even there but you can better assess what he saw?

Anyway, the game has been fun but I've explained what I do and why. Last word is all yours.

DonovanM
06-13-2012, 01:01 AM
USPSA but you were shooting from concealment?

Also, you say it's the "same time" but I didn't hear them announce what your time to that first shot was.

Yeah, the holster had just come earlier that day so I ran Limited Minor just for fun. I looked at the shot timer afterwards. 1.46.


You base this on what? How do you know it takes longer? How much time does this new bugaboo "modulation of speed" add to the draw?

That's my argument and my opinion. It is literally impossible to irrefutably test as I've said before.


First you wanted to compare single instances on video as definitive, then you tell someone who saw (how many?) shooters perform task (how many times?) that he doesn't have enough data. You weren't even there but you can better assess what he saw?

Anyway, the game has been fun but I've explained what I do and why. Last word is all yours.

You started by posting the video and being very specific with the performance standard... I only meant to respond in turn. It is not definitive and only a shade above meaningless.

I stand by what I said. If a shooter misses a shot, it's because they didn't see what they needed to see, not because they weren't picking their nose with the rear sight on the draw or something.

TGS
06-13-2012, 01:21 AM
I don't really think this is the best way to evaluate techniques. For one, since the instructor is biased for one particular technique and obviously way more familiar with it, his times will be skewed in favor of his favored technique, even if he intended to be impartial.

Totally. That's why I didn't put too much stock into that.....nor did I use it as an example of why the press-out is awezomer. I was citing it as something that Todd used for demonstrating.



I also wouldn't put much stock into that "only the dudes using pressouts made their first hit". Not only are we dealing with potentially incredibly variable levels of skill, but just because someone didn't see enough to make a shot doesn't mean they're using the wrong draw technique. This is a fundamentals problem... has nothing to do with their draw.

I get your point on this one as well, but I know what I saw. From what I can remember, a couple of them were putting in significantly better performances than me besides first shot accuracy under imperfect conditions. And before you try and punk me with something else like, "Yeah bra but that's just one time, so don't put too much stock into it..." it's a phenomena that has repeated itself in my experience.

I personally would never claim a press-out to be faster in a familiar environment for a well-practiced shooter....ex: a regular at the matches going through a stage. I think the application of a press-out is most beneficial when dealing with situational friction, as it helps consistency. That's cool that you're like, really really fast with a gun. Good on you, I hope you reach whatever level of speed you're looking for. Speed isn't something I'm looking for in my skills. To me, speed is a fringe benefit from increasing my consistency. I know Todd doesn't like this phrase, but I love it: Slow is smooth, smooth is fast. I've had to perform all sorts of tasks under stress, with impaired physical abilities and diminished cognitive capacity, with a hundred times or so of performing them under the consequence of losing my life....with one time going the way I didn't want to because I didn't do it the reliable way. My bag of luck that day is the only thing that kept me healthy, because there were lots of people that have died from that same exact situation, including people I know.

The only thing I've learned is that similar skills under stress can take well to a great mindset similar to land navigation....you need catching features in-between point A and B in order to do it reliably and make sure you don't miss your destination. To me, a press-out is creating catching features so that I do it reliably when stuff isn't going as I hoped it to. To me, a press-out is simple, not overly complicated, because I'm not trying to be fast, I'm trying to be smooth. In the future, if I get killed because my press-out costs me an extra tenth of a second and I gave the bad guy time to shoot me in that tenth of a second, then feel free to piss on my grave and pat yourself on the back.

JHC
06-13-2012, 08:35 AM
IMO this is a pretty kickass discussion. While I'm ingrained in an index sort of draw that dates back many decades and a zillion reps, I pointed my pretty solid shooting elder son to the press out years ago since his application is entirely martial. I can't say exactly how he finishes his trigger press because it's all faster than I can see/discern but he executes it like a training video for it. I figured it was a solid method for someone who will likely be in harms way perhaps in confined spaces and may or may not be shooting at the draw with the ROE and the situation etc but getting to high ready as early as possible was worthwile.

I'm skinny dumb and happy where I'm at but I have GOT to work on making consistent A zone hits at 20 yards in a second and half! That rocks. ;)

Gary1911A1
06-13-2012, 10:27 AM
Wow, a lot of good info here. Need to go back and read it all again from the start. I'm more like south narc in that I bring the pistol up to chest level and press it out aligning the front sight in the rear notch more level than muzzle/front sight up. Hope that made sense.

GJM
06-13-2012, 10:54 AM
At what point (distance or size of target) does the press-out no longer work, and you have to pause to refine the sight picture/trigger press? for example, groups at 25 yards, Dot Toture at 12 yards, or an 8 inch plate at 70 yards.

bdcheung
06-13-2012, 12:16 PM
At what point (distance or size of target) does the press-out no longer work, and you have to pause to refine the sight picture/trigger press? for example, groups at 25 yards, Dot Toture at 12 yards, or an 8 inch plate at 70 yards.

The way I understand the press-out, there is no distance at which it no longer works. The harder the target, the slower (and more deliberate) the movement of the extension.

ToddG
06-13-2012, 12:28 PM
At what point (distance or size of target) does the press-out no longer work, and you have to pause to refine the sight picture/trigger press? for example, groups at 25 yards, Dot Toture at 12 yards, or an 8 inch plate at 70 yards.

The best response I can offer is that the press-out is a means to an end and not the end itself.

I wouldn't press-out to a group at 25yd because I'm taking very slow, deliberate shots. The only exception would be if I was actually measuring what my press-out delivered (in terms of group size) for performance tracking purposes.

DotTor at 12yd, I'd say what I always say to students when shooting DotTor at any distance: press-out but if your sights aren't giving you a green light to take the shot at extension, fix it and go. The goal is twofold. First, by practicing tougher and tougher shots with the press-out the skill becomes available on demand against tougher targets. Second, even if you do need to make fine adjustments at extension, they should be smaller than if you weren't on your sights during the extension.

The same applies to the 8" plate at 70yd or any other distance.

At a certain point, if you slow the extension down too much you're probably adding more chaos to your sight picture than eliminating it. You're also possibly adding more time than you're gaining by breaking at extension (per the discussion above). Like anything, that's why we practice it: to make it faster, more accurate, and more dependable on demand.

Mr_White
06-13-2012, 03:33 PM
At a certain point, if you slow the extension down too much you're probably adding more chaos to your sight picture than eliminating it.

Can you clarify this a little?

Here's why I ask...

I notice that when pressing out (without regard to muzzle tilted or level) and I slow the gun down a lot, like when drawing to a target that is totally not a gimme, like say an upper A at 10 yards or more, that I get some shakiness in the extension which is then visible in the sight picture. Is this what you are talking about, or something else?

ToddG
06-13-2012, 09:54 PM
Don't overcomplicate it. If you're getting so much chaos in your sight picture during the extension that it's hurting you, then don't slow down so much. If that means you need time at extension to fix things, then that's what you need. It's not ideal. But if you can't do ideal, then do what works best for you at the moment.

As I said earlier, the only time I tell people not to "fix and fire" when necessary at extension is if they're specifically working their press-out to improve it. Doing a "fix and fire" is then just a bad rep.

Think of it in terms of trigger manipulation. Sometimes we press the trigger a little faster or slower depending on the difficulty of the shot. But if we go too slow, other problems crop up -- like the sights starting to move due to shaking, etc. If we're working slowfire bullseye, when the shake starts we abort the shot, shake it out, and start again. If you're responding to the buzzer at a match, you don't stop and ask for a reshoot because your trigger press was imperfect on the first shot. :cool:

Surf
06-14-2012, 07:01 AM
Surf,
Some of the discussion contrasts the two basic methods as one way or the other. You however indicate you may apply one or the other situationally.
My sense is that some portion of conventional wisdom assumes you WILL do it one way - the way you've been habituated to do it.

When I'm going flat out for speed on the timer I end up index-ish like the 45 degree you describe . . . I think: http://www.flickr.com/photos/78036189@N07/7301475234/
This is a habit born of starting on the draw all the way back around 1970 as a kid reading No Second Place Winner. But in matches all amped up I've had to draw in tight quarters and I didn't ram my front sight into a barrier, I pulled up higher (nose picking style) to clear the cover.

Am I reading you correctly that you've concluded you can make these adjustments situationally in a critical incident?This first paragraph will summarize the above quote and the rest will expound on it and will also allow me to share my thoughts on other things I read in this thread. Yes indeed I make adjustments situation dependent and use either method or numerous variations in between. I am definitely NOT stuck on one or another as I feel that is a mistake for my purposes. IMO it is very much advantageous or I will go as far as to say "crucial" to the outcome in a critical incident to be able to address the situation that you are faced with in the most effective way possible and the techniques employed may easily vary in their effectiveness as there are far too many variables in a spontaneous and dynamic critical incident. I am not under the belief that one antidote will cure all. Of course the "how it is performed" or the number of "antidotes" available is obviously skill level / shooter dependent. If you are "habituated" at only one method then that is your only frame of reference and of course you will default to it but is that always a good thing? If you are only a one trick pony and you are faced with a situation that you are unfamiliar with and don't have a response for it stored within your data base then what? Your savant ability at a single skill might get your though, but what if you are trained and highly skilled at several techniques and have frames of reference to give all these various skills valuable substance? I am convinced your chances of success only increase when you can perform more skills at a high levels of proficiency and I do believe that your that your ability to come up with something on the fly increases due to you having more skills / experiences to chose from that formulate your overall abilities including the ability to improvise.

Now before going further I should clarify a couple of things. Number 1 is that none of my actual critical incidents that ended in a bang so to speak involved quickly drawing on an individual, going through some type of presentation which concluded in an actual trigger pull. So from a draw to trigger pull I have no live fire frame of reference to say I used a press out or 45* or whatever. Indeed I have gone through many critical type incidents where there was a need to draw or present on individual(s) which could have ended in a trigger pull, but the pistol either went from draw to some shape or form of a ready position or when a type of a presentation was necessary I cannot think of a situation where I used a press out. I do have way more than my fair share of hours of force on force experience with weapons that actually fire a projectile (SIMS, etc) and have been able to replicate a much wider array of situations in which I might find myself and indeed I do use a press out in certain situations, but overwhelmingly for myself the press out is a lot less common in the situations that I find myself faced with. Number 2 is that what I do is not necessarily what I teach, but more on both later.

I will state that currently I do primarily teach a high indexed draw stroke where #3 is as straight up and as high as possible, somewhere just below chin level where the weapon hits #3 in a flat orientation towards the target and of course this is under the idea that we have a shootable threat. I teach to pick up the sights early but chose to describe the #3 to #4 as a "punch out" as opposed to a "press out" and this might be more of a matter of semantics rather than execution. I say punch out to stress the urgency of the situation, but the speed of the movement can vary given the factors involved such as need for speed v. precision v. time v. distance v. cover etc... I will also note that my student base almost always consists of those with variations of body armor and most of those are wearing rifle plates, so it is important to note that this affects where an individuals #3 position starts from. An index or starting point of the rear sight at the head directly or nearly under the chin is often times not an option. It may be further outbound. My press out however is more along the lines of what SN mentions where the weapon remains flat and the muzzle is not elevated at any point. I teach this method as I feel that it is more effective for my average student to be able to effectively fire shots and achieve more accurate hits from #3 all the way out along the path to full extension. In a more basic concept shooter if the weapon ends up flat and indexed straight from #3 on, there is less adjustment necessary if that "oh shit" moment happens prior to extension, or when that front sight actually drops into the notch of the rear sight. Muzzle elevated decreases ability in a lesser skilled shooter if a shot needs to be fired much sooner than extension or almost at full extension where the front sight is dropping into the rear notch and aligning. I find that my average student is more accurate when firing prior to full extension when they start with a flat slide instead of dropping the front sight into alignment much sooner than at or near extension. Greater skill will give more leeway and Todd is a great example of that because of the speed and precision that he can perform it.

For myself when pure speed is needed and I have a larger acceptable hit zone and a relatively close distance to target (my own assessment at that moment) where I can comfortably hit full extension to my benefit in making the shot, I use a 45* or shortest path. Understanding these factors I know my abilities to make acceptable shots along that path of extension if I need to break a shot early. If I feel that I have a much more difficult shot where more precision is needed and perhaps, time, distance and / or cover might be my friend then I might use my version of a press out. What do I feel a press out really is? Controlling chaos. By that I mean it allows me to get my Zen on. It allows me to get more focused on all of my basic fundamentals as I present the weapon. I am usually doing a controlled exhale, checking sight alignment / sight picture and focusing on the trigger pull. All of this happens even if I am doing a quick press out which is still nowhere near as fast as Todd's and not nearly as fast as I can perform the shortest path draw. I honestly don't really think about what I am going to do at this stage in my game as it really just seems to happen. Of course I think about it, but that process happens faster than I can even get my hand on the weapon much less get it out of the holster. By the time I get my grip I have already connected the dots of where the weapon is going to travel. I am usually assessing and planning movement for cover, evade, multiple threat possibilities, etc, etc, etc....I just think that the more scenarios that one is exposed to, the more questions and tangents to those questions have already been asked and answered and responses developed. I like to understand that "I know, that I don't know everything" and that what I do or teach right now will shape itself into some type of variation for the better in the future. I tend to disagree with those that think they have "THE answer" or "THE method", or "THE system". And I try to avoid giving absolutes or that things must be done in an exact manner. Never say never and don't always say always. Might sound like wishy washy hogwash to some and to others it might make perfect sense, which is perfectly OK with me.

I will remind that what I do and what I teach may have some serious gray areas as I know what I can get away with in accordance to my own training / abilities / limitations and those might be different from someone else. I will echo that my student base will also not likely find themselves in a good shooting platform that is static and squared up to a target when that draw and presentation is performed. They need to understand and be able to instantly adapt whatever they perform in reaction to the situation that they are faced with and do it with high levels of skill and proficiency. Of course I want them to have a good base foundation that they default to in an ideal situation a base foundation that is highly sound and that they can perform with high levels of skill but I also want them to be able to be thinkers, create their own unique style and be able to adapt and make that great diving stop and throw that ball from the seat of their pants to first base to get the out. To come up with something that isn't taught but just develops and is founded off of a good base fundamental. Obviously the more situations / scenarios that they are exposed to in training greatly helps them to define their "tool box" so to speak and this may also be why I am not a rigid proponent of singular methods or techniques and try to find value and incorporate variations of techniques and perhaps modify them to fit into the multitude of situations that I may find myself in.

So what if you are trained and highly skilled at several techniques and have frames of reference to give all these various skills valuable substance? Look at any sport or skilled function. Can Michael Jordan only stick out his tongue, leap through the air and physically place the basketball through the metal hoop? Can Tiger Woods only hit with a driver and bang only one woman? Take any pro athlete or person who performs at high levels of skill and proficiency at that sport / activity they have many ways to make a basket or put a ball in a hole. The difference is the person, their level of aptitude and their exposure to various skills / scenarios and have a practiced and proficient frame of reference of how these various skills might be applied spontaneously in an ever adapting game situation. Shooting and tactics is no different IMO. However the majority don't have the time and or resources, or even ability to get to that level. I appreciate simplicity, KISS and Hicks and his law, but quite honestly at a certain level and in certain disciplines and situations that is often dumbing things down especially when a person clearly has the ability and can benefit from progressing into new skills, when time, ability and resources are on their side. Developing a better mastery over more techniques via the repetition of correct and proper training can create accurate frames of reference in the hard drive that can be instantly accessed and successfully develop the fluidity of transitioning between skill sets which can come almost as naturally as any other involuntary bodily function. This also allows for spontaneity to create something out of nothing especially if it is a situation that you have never encountered before.

In closing, I cant stress it enough so I will repeat it again that what I teach often varies from what I do. I will also add that what I teach or perhaps foster in a student is very much dependent on where that person is in regards to their own skill, experience and levels of training. I am probably not going to take a 10 year old and teach him a fastball, curve ball, slider, knuckle ball, etc, etc, all at the same time. He will progress and when he is ready skills are added. There is a lot to be said for a reliever who can step up and throw the heat for a couple innings or so and heck you can make a career out of it, but having a varied bag of pitches to chose from and being highly skilled at all, will make for a far far better pitcher. Now if that guy can also hit the damn ball, look out! :)

JHC
06-14-2012, 07:52 AM
That was epic Surf. Thanks much.

BaiHu
06-14-2012, 11:12 AM
That was epic Surf. Thanks much.

+1 I agree. I think it summed up the whole thread well.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

GOP
06-14-2012, 11:57 AM
Excellent post Surf!

This week, I added in some draws on tiny targets at distance to (hopefully) boost my ability to hit 8" plates at 25-50 yards out of the holster. What I discovered was that occasionally, I'm automatically doing something similar to a press out. Or, at least, I'm seeing the sights earlier than I normally do. I firmly believe that by focusing on things like speed/accuracy and seeing what you need to see, that your body will pretty much figure out what to do on it's on. I really like breaking down individual things like a draw, but also recognize that for many of us who have things like strength/conditioning, combatives/MMA, outdoor skills, driving and other things that need to be trained, a draw is simply a draw. I'm shooting biased in my overall skill sets, but I think that if you understand the fundamentals and put in 6-10 hours a week of practice, your body will figure out the most effective way to get from point A point B subconsciously. In 360 days now, focusing strictly on speed/accuracy, I've taken my FAST from 7.5 to 3.58, my Bill Drill from 3.5 to 2.02, my Dot Torture from 31/50 at 3m to 44/50 at 7m, and my type-writer from .38 or so to 1.26. The key is smart practice in my opinion. Really though, what do I know?

Wait a second...DonovanM got banned? As well as Belt Jones? All because of this thread? They were some of our most knowledgeable and interesting members, that kind of seems unfair.

ToddG
06-14-2012, 12:11 PM
Wait a second...DonovanM got banned? As well as Belt Jones? All because of this thread? They were some of our most knowledgeable and interesting members, that kind of seems unfair.

No. In fact, if you read through this thread you'll see that they were both active and plenty of folks, myself included, were responding to them. But then -- after receiving multiple previous warnings -- they purposely posted things with the intent of getting banned. They even put up screen shots on a facebook page bragging about it. They wanted to keep pushing until they got banned, so they got banned.

It's unfortunate because, minus the personal attacks and such, I think it's been a very informative thread that has given people multiple viewpoints to consider in terms of their own technique (or lack thereof :cool:).

If you or anyone else has any questions about this, please feel free to PM me or any member of the Staff. We're not going to let this thread get further bogged down by these guys.

GOP
06-14-2012, 01:09 PM
No. In fact, if you read through this thread you'll see that they were both active and plenty of folks, myself included, were responding to them. But then -- after receiving multiple previous warnings -- they purposely posted things with the intent of getting banned. They even put up screen shots on a facebook page bragging about it. They wanted to keep pushing until they got banned, so they got banned.

It's unfortunate because, minus the personal attacks and such, I think it's been a very informative thread that has given people multiple viewpoints to consider in terms of their own technique (or lack thereof :cool:).

If you or anyone else has any questions about this, please feel free to PM me or any member of the Staff. We're not going to let this thread get further bogged down by these guys.

I apologize for bringing this up then, I didn't know about all of that. Hate to lose their informative posts and journal entries, but it happens. I'm still not sure why some chose to get so heated about this topic, as this is one of the best threads I have been a part of here.

I really believe that gun and fight related topics, techniques, and related information should be viewed from a logical, unbiased perspective because people literally live and die by this type of information.

ToddG
06-14-2012, 08:18 PM
I found a few of my posts from last year which I thought were worth repeating given the earlier discussion about breaking a shot at extension:

----- 12-14-2011 -----

YVK -- My expectations mirrored yours. JV was at the range with me and can attest to my surprise.

The 2" circle @ 7yd has been the bane of my press-out experience lately. I can think of a number of possible reasons:

It causes me to extend so slowly that it's not worth it.
I get muzzle dip at full extension (related to pressing forward slowly).
It becomes more of a timing-on-purpose exercise, which is bad, than just breaking the shot naturally. When the shot breaks early because I'm aggressive on the trigger, it's almost always a hit.
The anticipation/break issue mentioned in my previous post

When I'm doing the hybrid press/index, I'm definitely getting on my sights before full extension and very rarely did I need to make a correction even on the 2" at 7yd. I attribute this to having a few reps under my belt at drawing to low% targets... essentially, I've got a really good index. However, I did the target focus string specifically to test how good my "index" was and it wasn't good enough to hit blind. That's meaningful.

While it's too early to draw conclusions, the data so far suggests to me that:

When shooting targets that are high% enough that I can make a hit with the press-out, the press-out is faster.
Once the target becomes low% enough that a traditional press-out is artificially slow or results in misses, doing a faster less precise press-out then making a final correction before finishing the trigger stroke is more accurate and possibly faster.

Like I said, on some level that's really what I've always taught. "Do a press-out but if you're not ready to make a hit at extension, fix it." But I've always looked at the failure to "be ready" as a fault in technique. Now I'm wondering if it's just a line between two slightly different requirements.

----- -----

----- 12-15-2011 -----

Tried it with the 3x5 at 7yd today. The most honest assessment is that it became very difficult to distinguish between a true press-out and a hybrid. When I didn't need more time to perfect the hybrid, the shot broke like a press-out. When the press-out wasn't quite right, I paused enough to fix it and it became a hybrid.

Trying to do them as a press-out, I was 11/15 averaging 1.48s to the shot.
Trying to do the hybrid, I was 13/15 averaging 1.44s to the shot.
Between the two, I'd say it's too close to call with the limited data.

Point shooting averaged an awesome 1.13s but accuracy suffered a tiny bit (2 out of 15 hits).

----- -----

----- 12-16-2011 -----

Trying not to split atoms here, but more observations along these lines:


When I practice a press-out very slowly with a DA/SA, DAO, DA revoler, or LEM it gets better because I'm taking more time to be precise with both my sights and my trigger.
When I practice a press-out very slowly with a Glock or 1911, it gets worse because eventually I reach that hard break point and need to crush through it if I'm going to break the shot at/before extension. This is why I prefer a setup with my Glock that gives me a more rolling trigger than stock.
If I release myself from the commandment to break the shot at extension regardless of whether I'm really ready for the finish of the trigger pull, I can stop and get a better break. That simultaneously means I don't have to be as slow during the extension.


Plenty of instructors I respect highly poo-poo the press-out and to a man, they were all brought up thinking the 1911 was the only worthwhile handgun ever made. With a light enough, short enough trigger stroke the trigger portion of the press-out becomes far less important.

From my own testing over the past couple of evenings, I'm more convinced than ever that being on the sights as early as possible is beneficial to breaking low% shots at speed. But I'm beginning to think that something I've taught for years as "good enough if it's all you can do, but not ideal" -- namely, finishing the shot break after extension -- might actually have some benefits, at least for guns that have a harder, more distinct trigger break.

I decided to skip going to the range today specifically so I could play with this in dry fire with both my Glock and my SIRT (which, ironically, has more of a rolling trigger than my Glock) as well as one of my LEM guns.

Right now, the question I'm dealing with is this: is it my emotional investment in the press-out or my emotional investment in my own shooting ability that is wrong? :cool:

In other words, is the press-perfect-break method really better at least for some guns, or is it that I'm just not doing a good enough press-out with my Glock?

----- -----

ToddG
06-14-2012, 08:33 PM
Following up on the above:

Today I tried purposely to do more of a "faster extension" accepting that the sight picture might need to be cleaned up at the end. For comparison purposes, I used the exact same drill as one I shot on Monday: 50 reps of 2 shots to a 3x5 at 7yd with a 1.8s PAR.




Hits
Misses (in time)
Late shots


break at extension
89
8
3


clean up at extension
84
11
5



A few notes:

Titles aside, the reality is that today's run ("clean up at extension") frequently turned in results that allowed me to break at extension.
Because these were run as PARs it is hard to say definitively if one was faster than the other on average.


Conclusions at present:

Not surprisingly, if the gun was aligned and ready to hit at the moment of extension, the draws with the faster extension (Thursday) were faster than the ones with the slower extension (Monday).
I missed substantially more first shots with the "faster" method, but it's probably unfair to blame the technique for that. It's far less familiar to me and at least a few times I felt myself breaking shots at extension when I wasn't ready. My swag is that would be less frequent with practice.
Monday I had three late shots which were caused by losing the sight after the first shot. Thursday I had five and they were all caused by extending too fast (and thus too imprecisely) which ate up a lot of time getting lined up for the first shot.

TGS
06-14-2012, 10:44 PM
I missed substantially more first shots with the "faster" method, but it's probably unfair to blame the technique for that. It's far less familiar to me and at least a few times I felt myself breaking shots at extension when I wasn't ready. My swag is that would be less frequent with practice.


I'm guessing that you'll find the press-out less beneficial when you start running the 1911's. I'd be interested to see you actually dig down into not using the press-out for several thousand continuous rounds (what, you can't do 3 weeks? lol) as part of a concerted effort to get a significant sample size where the punch-out/clean-up is your familiar method. Thus, the comparison against the press-out could be much more valid.

ToddG
06-14-2012, 11:04 PM
Like I've said previously, they're all still press-outs. It's a matter of whether the shot is ready to break at extension or not.

I still feel like ideally the shot should break at extension. Again, no matter how you slice it, if you're at extension and need more time then you're adding time compared to being able to break the shot that instant. That's tautological. If anything, the improvement in my press-out with the Glock over the past six months shows that I'm actually better than I was when I did the initial comparison in December... the "break at extension" numbers are now superior to the "break after extension" numbers. That mirrors my belief that working on the skill to improve it so you can more often break at extension is a plus.

It's also worth noting that my current Glock trigger (standard Glock minus connector and coil spring, gen4 trigger bar) is much more "1911-ish" than the way I had it set up in December.

So really, I keep circling around to the same two basic conclusions:

Practicing the technique so you can break an aimed shot at the moment of extension pays dividends.
It's more important to break an aimed shot than it is to break an aimed shot at the moment of extension.


FWIW, I just grabbed my wife's Browning Hi-Power (which has a nice tuned trigger that pretty consistently measured four pounds ten ounces) and dry-fired it twenty five times to a 3/4" dot at seven feet which is approximately the equivalent of a 2" circle at 7yd. It was actually very easy to break the trigger right at extension. The same basic principle -- constant straight back pressure -- seems to work pretty well. Of course, it's only marginal information compared to live fire with the actual gun I'll be using.

GJM
06-15-2012, 12:14 AM
I think shooting one hand, and in particular when shooting support hand only, it is highly desirable to break the shot upon reaching extension, as you don't have the second hand to support the pistol and avoid disturbing the sights when you want the shot to break RIGHT now. Watching people shoot target two at Rogers, support hand only, I see LOTS of hits on the hostage head to the right of target two as they mash the trigger.

For this reason, even though I both press out and present/pause with two hands, depending upon the circumstances, I try to modulate the speed of my press out when shooting support hand only, so as to time the shot at extension.

MDS
06-15-2012, 08:05 AM
I think shooting one hand, and in particular when shooting support hand only, it is highly desirable to break the shot upon reaching extension, as you don't have the second hand to support the pistol and avoid disturbing the sights when you want the shot to break RIGHT now. Watching people shoot target two at Rogers, support hand only, I see LOTS of hits on the hostage head to the right of target two as they mash the trigger.

For this reason, even though I both press out and present/pause with two hands, depending upon the circumstances, I try to modulate the speed of my press out when shooting support hand only, so as to time the shot at extension.

That's fascinating. As the SME of Suck, my experience at Rogers was the opposite WHO. I concluded that I just don't have enough dexterity with my WH to adjust the sight picture during the press-out. I always end up having to do significant correction at extension. I started hitting WHO a lot more when I started doing a fast press-out, regardless of how clean the sight picture was, and correcting at extension. Sometimes I'd get a good press-out and do little or no correction at extension, sometimes I'd have to hunt for the front sight for a while after extension. With the tight times at Rogers, I didn't have the luxury of practicing nice, slow, perfect press-outs to build that dexterity in my WH. (I did dry-fire every night, with a little improvement over the week, but not nearly enough.)

I interpreted that as a lesson for all my shooting, not just WHO. Since Rogers, I've been shooting with a fast press-out and cleaning up if necessary at extension. In dry-fire, I practice slow perfect press-outs nightly, attempting to build that dexterity. My sight picture is slowly getting better and better at extension at speed, so that I have to correct less and less often. At my skill level, I'm not so worried about eking every last hundredth or even tenth of speed from my press-out - I'm much more worried about getting reliable, consistent results, whatever the speed might be. (I feel like my speed is "good enough" for now... when I don't screw up. I just screw up way too often.)

I've been following this thread religiously, because that first shot from the holster sets the tone for the rest of the string, at least for me. I'm trying to not only understand the techniques that the top shooters use so effectively, but also to understand a) what technique will be most effective for me right now; and b) what technique and practice will be the most efficient path to improvement for me. Thanks for all the insights!

ford.304
06-15-2012, 08:21 AM
So what I want to know - at what size of target, Todd, does the index become "accurate enough" for you? Your sample shows 2/15 hitson a 3x5 card at seven yards. How big was the group?

It seems like there's an inflection point where which technique is better switches, and I'm curious where that switch actually is. Obviously a full IPSC target at 5 yards is on one side and a headshot only target at 7-10 yards is on the other, but where do they switch for a good shooter?

GJM
06-15-2012, 09:55 AM
I find shooting the DA .22 revolver a lot, where you have to steer the sights while working that long trigger, has been the biggest thing to help my support hand only shooting.

My wife and I shoot a lot of two inch dots with the revolver, SIRT and live fire, practicing breaking the shot at extension, and if we are unable to break the shot, don't fire. We learned this from an instructor with the initials TLG. My wife is awesome support hand only, and a few days ago, I watched her go 5/5 on an 8 inch plate at 30 yards, with her G17, breaking each shot at the extension of the press out.

Support hand only has been the single hardest thing for me in all of pistol shooting.

JV_
06-15-2012, 09:56 AM
I've been shooting with a fast press-out and cleaning up if necessary at extension.When going fast, that's what I do.

jetfire
06-15-2012, 10:46 AM
my wife's Browning Hi-Power

Your wife currently has a way cooler gun than you do.

JohnN
06-15-2012, 08:29 PM
I find shooting the DA .22 revolver a lot, where you have to steer the sights while working that long trigger, has been the biggest thing to help my support hand only shooting.

My wife and I shoot a lot of two inch dots with the revolver, SIRT and live fire, practicing breaking the shot at extension, and if we are unable to break the shot, don't fire. We learned this from an instructor with the initials TLG. My wife is awesome support hand only, and a few days ago, I watched her go 5/5 on an 8 inch plate at 30 yards, with her G17, breaking each shot at the extension of the press out.

Support hand only has been the single hardest thing for me in all of pistol shooting.

Did you use the DA revolver as a training tool to help improve your one handed LEM times or did you just recently start using it? In prior discussions you had mentioned that you were struggling with the LEM system when trying to shoot it quickly one handed. I have found the same thing, whereas my two handed scores were fairly decent. If the use of a DA revolver would help improve one handed shooting with the LEM it would be worth a try.

GJM
06-15-2012, 10:38 PM
Did you use the DA revolver as a training tool to help improve your one handed LEM times or did you just recently start using it? In prior discussions you had mentioned that you were struggling with the LEM system when trying to shoot it quickly one handed. I have found the same thing, whereas my two handed scores were fairly decent. If the use of a DA revolver would help improve one handed shooting with the LEM it would be worth a try.

I read about it here at PF, and started shooting the 317 regularly in late March, after getting back from Rogers, and deciding I was going to become a great support hand shooter. At that time, I also decided I was going to do something that comes easy to Todd, and hard for me -- basically shoot just ONE platform for a year, the Glock. Out of curiosity, I have shot a few rounds thru the LEM in the last month or two, and it feels like the revolver has been a big help, but I really have been just shooting a 17, so it is only anecdotal. I can say without question it has made an enormous difference in my Glock support hand shooting, and I know my wife feels the same. Between my tennis elbow in my dominant elbow, not mostly resolved, and the thousands of rounds of .22 I have shot since March, I am actually more comfortable one handed with my support hand!

As is our custom, we started our practice today shooting dots at 7 yards, one hand only with the DA Smith 317. This is the result of six shots my wife shot at 7 yards, 3 each hand, with the shot broken at reaching extension, with one called "flyer."

843

I can't imagine not having a DA revolver and SIRT pistol to help our Glock shooting, but for an LEM shooter I feel like the revolver should be mandatory, and HK would be smart to package one up with each LEM pistol. :)

Steven Cline
06-17-2012, 12:58 PM
Not sure where the dickering went after that.

We have a bunch of arguing by people with differing opinions and no real scientific based facts. The best arguments are only analogy based. Vodel uses X it much be best; nope, Enug uses Y so it much be best; nah-ah, Lethal uses Z, it must be better.

What you have there gentlemen are three great shooters practicing their draws until they are finely honed. Great shooters with sharp reflexes, fast eyes, excellent motor skills with other's pretending the technique got them to the top of their game. Stop pretending the technique matter more than genetics couple with huge amounts of practice by persons driven to be the best there is.

How about we admit that we simply have minor variations of getting the the gun from holster to shooting it and drop all the ego out of the picture? I predict that if we had forty eleven people all claiming their were doing J or press out or Index or whatever draw we'd have forty eleven different looking draws as each tailored it to himself.

Better, yet, someone pony up some science. Let's pick a large sample, randomly assign the participants to groups, measure their draw times to an 8" plate at 10 yards without training. Train them in the various draws while keeping a control group. We'll measure their improvement, and come to a statistical measure of what is actually working better. State your hypothesis, your null-hypothesis, formulate your method. What's gonna be your confidence factor (interval? I can't recall, college was too long ago).

You might have to repeat the study with different models to determine (definitively) if one draw is actually better. Otherwise you're arguing your opinion and ego.

To throw my observations into the non-scientific debate arena:

It's neither good nor bad. It's implementation is either good or bad.

The speed at which you arrive to when you break the shoot is the first to consider. Index would seem to be fastest, until a show that the arms move faster do to their engineering.

Add to this the time to align the sights plus press the trigger. Maybe J or press out "speeds" up the time to shot, but only if the additional motion does not off-set reduced sighting time. Eyes sight fast, you can't add too much time to the mechanics without slowing down the total time.

Now, individual differ. Some dude with really fast hands and slow eyes might be able to index that gun to full extension and still beat the press-out or J draw dudes.

Also, don't we have some Japanese shooter running about who learned on airsoft who is fast as hell with a gun draw to a few inches from his face and firing right there? Now what.

If missed something important in pages 3 - 12, please bring it to my attention. Otherwise, we've had 12 pages of, "I'm right." "Nuh uh, I am."

Though Todd J does make a convincing argument for the J draw.... .66 wowser.

sorry, couldn't resist. ;)



ETA: I got back to reading the posts past page 2- it did better, apologies. Please read post in that context. Discussion is still largely theoretical without the test to prove the opinions, no matter the origin of the opinion.

Gun Nerd
06-18-2012, 04:03 PM
Not too long ago I trained with John Holschen at Insights. He teaches a press-out, but he prefers to not elevate the muzzle. His draw stroke is L shaped. I suspect his preference for the horizontal muzzle is partially the result of him using an RDS (Glock 19) and elevating the muzzle would make it harder to track the dot since it would be out of view (initially).

We also talked about breaking the shot early, before full extension. IIRC, he said breaking the shot before full extension, as long as your sights were aligned, was a natural next step - I think he used the phrase "evolutionary step".

When I took Intensive Handgun Skills with John in late 2008, he wasn't yet using an optic on his pistol. However, he indicated that part of what he was teaching was aimed (due to InSights' emphasis on integrating their combative system) at developing the ability to fire at any point during the draw. He demonstrated this by firing multiple shots during a single draw stroke, breaking the first shot from retention, at least one more part way out, and the last at full extension.

Gun Nerd
07-09-2012, 03:46 PM
When I took Intensive Handgun Skills with John in late 2008, he wasn't yet using an optic on his pistol. However, he indicated that part of what he was teaching was aimed (due to InSights' emphasis on integrating their combative system) at developing the ability to fire at any point during the draw. He demonstrated this by firing multiple shots during a single draw stroke, breaking the first shot from retention, at least one more part way out, and the last at full extension.

Coincidentally, InSights just put out a video that shows John's ready position, press-out and close-range engagement from the ready. Press-out is about 1:45.


http://youtu.be/E2Topr_yDTY