PDA

View Full Version : Driving the gun on transitions



Slavex
06-09-2013, 02:13 AM
So after spending 2 days with Todd Jarrett last week I've been motivated to get out more and shoot. I'm not shooting IPSC this season (long dumb story) so I've let a lot the skills needed for it slide. Transitions and movement the most. Working with Todd last week made me remember how important the legs and hips are in really big arc transitions, and after today's practice I can actually feel it. Anyone else got any tips on transitions and how to speed up the actual moving of the gun from target to target?

Kobalt60
06-09-2013, 11:47 AM
For large MOA transitions... eyes, head, shoulders and hips, then gun. Basically, everything should already be lined up by the time your gun gets on target so you can break an accurate shot once the sights are on target. Also, by the time your sights are on target, your eyes and therefore your attention has been on target (hopefully) long enough to make the decision to shoot or not. If your gun is waiting on your eyes/brain, then there's mental pressure to make a rushed decision.

For small MOA transitions, like shooting a plate rack, take advantage of the recoil to reposition the sights. So the sights go up on recoil and come down on the new target.

theblacknight
06-09-2013, 05:50 PM
I'm also working on my trans BC they are usually .40-.30 when my splits are .2's. As soon as I call that target's last shot, my eyes race to the next target zone and I actually think the word"drive". Top guys start their transitions during recoil. I'm getting there.


When I have a large swings of between 90 and 179*:D degrees, I bring the gun back a little to give it the straightest, shortest path to travel between extension points.

FailureDrill
06-10-2013, 12:49 PM
So after spending 2 days with Todd Jarrett last week I've been motivated to get out more and shoot. I'm not shooting IPSC this season (long dumb story) so I've let a lot the skills needed for it slide. Transitions and movement the most. Working with Todd last week made me remember how important the legs and hips are in really big arc transitions, and after today's practice I can actually feel it. Anyone else got any tips on transitions and how to speed up the actual moving of the gun from target to target?

Calling shots is a critical component to faster target transitions. If you can call your shot as you break the shot on the last target prior to the transition, you don't need to let the sights resettle on that target. As the shot breaks, you can be instantly driving your eyes to the next target and your gun can immediately begin movement towards the second target while still in recoil. If you are waiting for your sights to settle to see where your hit is on the target, that's hundreths or tenths of a second that you aren't transitioning to the next target.

This shows itself most apparently when watching a top shooter fire on a swinger/mover target and then transition to something else. They will come up, break two shots and move out, confident that they call two hits on the swinger and transition immediately to the next target. Less experienced shooters don't know what they saw or trust what they see and will wait for a second, or even third exposure to follow up with additional shots.

Kobalt60
06-11-2013, 09:08 PM
Calling shots is a critical component to faster target transitions. If you can call your shot as you break the shot on the last target prior to the transition, you don't need to let the sights resettle on that target. As the shot breaks, you can be instantly driving your eyes to the next target and your gun can immediately begin movement towards the second target while still in recoil. If you are waiting for your sights to settle to see where your hit is on the target, that's hundreths or tenths of a second that you aren't transitioning to the next target.

This shows itself most apparently when watching a top shooter fire on a swinger/mover target and then transition to something else. They will come up, break two shots and move out, confident that they call two hits on the swinger and transition immediately to the next target. Less experienced shooters don't know what they saw or trust what they see and will wait for a second, or even third exposure to follow up with additional shots.

Its more than just the time spent transitioning after seeing your hit. When in recoil, your sight picture is already unsettled, moving the sights to the new target while the sights are already in motion lets the sights settle just once on the new target... rather than twice on the last target and then again on the new one.

Slavex
06-12-2013, 04:29 AM
When I do transitions drills at the start of practice, the targets are about 5-7 yards away and a minimum of 1 yard apart, although the further out the more the spread. I even put some amost one the 90 on each side. Eyes of course move first and the gun (I hope) is moving during recoil as I've called the shot based on sight picture when it broke. but to really get speed and muscle in it, I'm pushing off with my legs and using my core to swing me around, and man, does it work. my legs and ass felt it today big time.

gunkid
06-12-2013, 11:21 AM
people and targets don't respond the same, and when you don't have ear protection, you are going to miss a lot. Ditto nightfire, if you are already wounded, etc. In civilian self defense with a pistol, 45 years of study have failed to find, since the advent of the 1911 and the end of the frontier, a case wherein the civilian had to hit more than 2 guys. It's very rare for a soldier to SURVIVE needing to do so, too. :-) Cirillo, in his famous first shootout, shot one of the fleeing robbers in the back. So that was an unnecessary hit. You fight like you train, and a great deal of IPSC and IDPA are very bad habits to get into. I'll shoot at the first one until I see the sob's brains, thanks all the same. With a suppressed M4, softpoints and a TEOTWAKI environment, I might have to alter that approach, a little bit, but I'll have reasons upon which to base my faith in 1-2 shots having done the job, too.

TCinVA
06-12-2013, 11:29 AM
people and targets don't respond the same, and when you don't have ear protection, you are going to miss a lot.

1548

ToddG
06-12-2013, 11:34 AM
In civilian self defense with a pistol, 45 years of study have failed to find, since the advent of the 1911 and the end of the frontier, a case wherein the civilian had to hit more than 2 guys.

So you're in favor of high capacity magazine bans?

JAD
06-12-2013, 02:12 PM
So you're in favor of high capacity magazine bans?

No, duh. He's saying that the invention of the 1911 eliminated all numbers greater than two. Which is why I carry a 1211.


Jon
KC

ToddG
06-12-2013, 02:13 PM
No, duh. He's saying that the invention of the 1911 eliminated all numbers greater than two. Which is why I carry a 1211.

11101110111

JV_
06-12-2013, 02:15 PM
11101110111OK, maybe I was wrong w/ my other comment :p

Maple Syrup Actual
06-12-2013, 03:09 PM
No, duh. He's saying that the invention of the 1911 eliminated all numbers greater than two.

This definitely explains gunkid's past obsession with using "assault" 10/22s.

I once had an argument with this guy (this was several years ago, before this round of incarceration) where he talked about carrying rimfire pistols to shoot hostages in the abdomen, on the grounds that the hostages would fear the possibility of lingering death from a rimfire wound more than the immediate death presented by centerfire rounds.

Leaving aside any questions about ethics or morality, I recall my concern was that this would only work on people smart enough to grasp varying wound lethality, but not smart enough to imagine prolonged deaths from anything other than rimfire pistols.

I could only conclude that this limits potential hostages to special needs children, who would be difficult to manage without trained assistants. The infrastructure required to execute this plan, then, almost certainly involves the participation of disgruntled special needs educators. So either they are in greater surplus in the US than in Canada or there is some kind of conspiracy going on within their field.

Ultimately a disturbing revelation, in my opinion.

Sent from my SGH-I317M using Tapatalk 2

Slavex
06-12-2013, 05:43 PM
and there goes that thread right off the cliff...

Surf
06-15-2013, 12:47 PM
Eyes, head then body transition. As you are finding, hips and legs are critical for longer or more spread out transitions. I will drop the hips slightly but more important is that I will bend the opposite knee in order to get quick rotation. IE transitioning to the right, my left knee bends. For pistol if it is a large transition I will not stay at full extension but I will slightly depress the weapon with a slight muzzle up can't. When I hit alignment for the next target I will drop the muzzle. This tends to keep accuracy higher for myself. I would say I use this type of movement when targets go beyond about a 45* or so transition.

Slavex
06-23-2013, 05:05 AM
was working 180 degree transitions on steel tonight. Targets were 10yds away, also had targets in front at 10yds. So one large plate straight to my left, one straight to my right and then 1 8 inch plate straight ahead in front and an ipsc target on either side of it.
Best transitions from hard left to right were .66, doing it working my way across the front targets, so going from paper to steel I was in the same range. really frustrating sometimes.

YVK
06-24-2013, 09:21 AM
I spent a day one on one in early May with Manny Bragg basically shooting transitions. His thing was seeing sight lift off the target as the earliest - and therefore best - time to move on to the next target. That was a lightbulb moment for me as I find it easier to break tasks apart and that gave me a defined "go" signal. We did a nice drill when he tried to tap my hand when he saw my sights lift - if he succeeded it was a sign I was slow moving on to the next shot. His second thing is trigger prep, ready to go off the moment sights are on.
On larger targets sight crossing the edge of a target was a "shoot" signal.
I found I overdid the whole "eyes first" thing too.

Slavex
06-24-2013, 04:02 PM
worked on this all afternoon Saturday. Had steel setup at 180 degrees from each other, and then 2 paper and 1 steel straight ahead down range as well. Distance was 15yds from the shooter to each target. My best times just working the two outside steel were .66s. Average was .70. Throwing the other targets in I found leaving them to hit an outside steel I was at about .55 average.
Then I grabbed my G17 and took it down to .58 transitions to the two outside targets, with an average of .61. The heavy CZ made a huge difference apparently on transitions.

Kobalt60
07-02-2013, 09:25 AM
I was thinking about this earlier and realized that target transitions is one of those tactical vs. gamer differences that we should probably be wary of.

The difference has to do with assumptions about the target. In a match, it's pretty safe to assume that if you hit a plate that its going to go down and therefore it's safe to transition to the next target before the sights settle (I.e. in recoil). Tactically speaking, this is a potential training scar because we should be making the decision to shoot of not shoot again prior to transitioning. In my training, the mantra was one shot two sight pictures, three shots... Four sight pictures. The final sight picture ought to be precise enough to score a solid hit if the target doesn't go down.

In this case, the "tactical" approach will be slower than the "gamer" technique. Thoughts?

YVK
07-02-2013, 10:55 AM
I don't know nothing about anything tactical, but I am pretty sure I won't be verifying my work through sights and following a bad guy # 1 to the ground if there are two more bad guys next to him presenting an immediate threat. I'd try to rely on my shot calling and hit them all as fast as I could. Meaning that my transition techniques wouldn't change.

Joseph B.
07-02-2013, 11:06 AM
I would run away...b/c one bad guy is like eleventeen sight pictures, where two or three bad guys is like 1, 2, ahhhh 3, plus ahhhh whatever, I'm just going to run away because of the math alone.


Is it more "tactical" to put 1 bullet in each bad guy first and than follow up on who ever is still looking scary. Or should you shoot each with two bullets and follow up with Mr Scary? Wait how many sight pictures is that? Ehhhh?


I give up.:confused:

Kobalt60
07-02-2013, 09:29 PM
The extra sight picture is just a way of explaining that you're shooting someone until they're no longer a threat. Typically you don't know if your shots have been successful until you assess the target. If they aren't down then you'd better be ready to shoot again. Also, it's not about just scoring hits, so unless you're so awesome that you're calling head shots to their credit card, odds are you won't know if you're shot was effective until after you stop to assess.

There's a good chance that you could put two rounds into each of your multiple targets and still have just as many threats as before you started shooting. I'm thinking it might be better to shoot one to the ground and then see which of his buddies are still up for a fight.

YVK
07-02-2013, 11:58 PM
The extra sight picture is just a way of explaining that you're shooting someone until they're no longer a threat. Typically you don't know if your shots have been successful until you assess the target. If they aren't down then you'd better be ready to shoot again. Also, it's not about just scoring hits, so unless you're so awesome that you're calling head shots to their credit card, odds are you won't know if you're shot was effective until after you stop to assess.

There's a good chance that you could put two rounds into each of your multiple targets and still have just as many threats as before you started shooting. I'm thinking it might be better to shoot one to the ground and then see which of his buddies are still up for a fight.

I tend to think that being hit twice is a better deterrent than seeing a buddy being hit 6 times, especially that it takes time to recognize that buddy was hit.
I'd agree with you in a case of one attacker, but not in case of three.

Slavex
07-03-2013, 05:42 AM
this thread has absolutely zero to do with "tactical" situations, even though transitioning fast from threat to threat is obviously important.

And the whole, "training scar" thing. don't buy into it at all. I do a lot of FOF training with various agencies up here and have yet to do anything gamer like in any of the scenarios, be it me as the bad guy, or one the times I get to go a round as a good guy. I shoot my threats, I look around and don't get tunnel vision, and I certainly don't do reloads standing still, in front of someone putting rounds on me. I suppose if all someone did was game stuff, all the time, every time they shot, a "training scar" could develop, but I am much more of the belief system others have written about far better than I, but it basically states "the training scar argument is just an excuse for poor performance in a game".

Joseph B.
07-03-2013, 05:30 PM
My opinion on transition is two prong: the closer the targets the more I avoid using lower body and the more upper body to move the gun to each target. The more distance or anything requiring more than 45 degrees of traverse, than I will use more lower body and attempt to gain more upper body traversing once on the next target.

As for speed: I try to drive my sights to where I know the next target is (sights stay in my vision). However, if I am unsure or unaware of my next target I use my eyes to find the target and then drive the sights/ gun to the target.

I am pretty fast on target transition on a bank of targets, plate racks, etc. However, longer distances between each target tend to slow me down considerably.

ToddG
07-04-2013, 10:02 AM
this thread has absolutely zero to do with "tactical" situations, even though transitioning fast from threat to threat is obviously important.

Except it's a much different ballgame when you don't know:

what target you're shooting next
where that target is
whether or not that target is still justifiably a target
whether that target is still safely engaged


Since you brought up FOF, try this easy experiment:

Shoot an El Prez live-fire for time. Note your transition times.

Ditch all live weapons and gear up with FOF guns. Shoot an El Prez against three human opponents who are told they can do whatever they want (move, etc) as soon as you start your turn. Instruct each of the three opponents that they should continue engaging you until they've been hit in the chest or face four times. Note your transition times.

To make it even more complicated and realistic, put five roll players down range, two of whom are unarmed. Note your transition times.

Being able to drive the gun to a known, identified, green-lit target may speed you up a tenth or two. That's going to be all but noise, statistically, compared to the time it takes to locate, identify, and decide to shoot a given target.

YVK
07-04-2013, 01:32 PM
Not sure I am fully tracking. The scenario above, in addition to transitions, adds shooting at moving targets and target discrimination. I think it is given that transitions will be slower. That said, since Rob's initial intent was to discuss the technical aspects of transitions - those won't change, would they?

ToddG
07-04-2013, 01:55 PM
Not sure I am fully tracking. The scenario above, in addition to transitions, adds shooting at moving targets and target discrimination. I think it is given that transitions will be slower. That said, since Rob's initial intent was to discuss the technical aspects of transitions - those won't change, would they?

The "technical aspects of transitions" involve driving the eyes immediately to the next target's position and driving the gun immediately to the next target's position. As soon as you eliminate a known next target and a known position for same, those technical aspects start to break down. This becomes even more true if you are shooting the threat to the ground instead of just firing a pre-determined number of shots and (regardless of effect) moving on to the next target.

Slavex
07-04-2013, 07:32 PM
This is all true, and I mention using my eyes to grab the next target first. However I am specifically talking about on a range, shooting known targets, that are not moving. Regarding Todd's post, in that scenario, I'd be moving as well, most likely, so there would be a number of different things happening. It would be significantly unrelated to my original post though, however the next time we are out doing FOF, I'll try it.