A punch is just a punch...

[45dotACP]

Read a quote from Bruce Lee not long ago that made me think of the "favorite weapons" thread but different subject matter.

"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 height of cultivation is really nothing special. It is merely simplicity; the ability to express the utmost with the minimum."

I think so frequently, it's so easy to get caught up in "what sights?" or "What barrel?" or "What trigger?" that one can lose sight of the person behind it all.


Yeah, a lot of this stuff does matter...until it doesn't. I'm nowhere near the part in my shooting journey where a "front sight is just a front sight, a trigger is just a trigger" and so on.

Sure, a lot of high level shooters modify their guns to suit their needs, but so do a lot of guys who aren't high level shooters (yours truly included) so perhaps the difference is a matter of mastery?

[spinmove_]

I think the little modifications that are made by the higher level shooters are, for the most part, to squeeze out that last 1-5% of performance edge which is tailored for them specifically. They've already attained the level of mastery necessary to facilitate those modifications actually having some value at their level. People who make the modifications that the higher level shooters do make said modifications because they think those modifications will give them the same edge. It may and it may not. The difference is that there are still upgrades and modifications that need to be made at the "software" level of those "not as good" shooters before the firearm modifications need to be made. And even then, they don't necessarily NEED to be made most of the time.

Sights, those are a personal thing that, depending upon the individual's abilities, genetics, age, and a bunch of other factors that should be tailored to the shooter sooner than other modifications. I think optics would fall under that category as well. Modifications beyond that, other than fit of the gun to the shooter or fitting the appropriate gun to the shooter, I think are far less important than the vast majority of people think they are.

At this stage in the game I can pick up pretty much any pistol and, with a relatively low round count (50-100 rounds or less), shoot said pistol just about as well if not just as well as whatever pistol I've been currently shooting the most frequently. Learn to truly shoot, as in the art and not simply making the thing do a result, and the specific tool that you're using becomes less important in your ability to make hits.

Reliability, absolute precision, aesthetics, and manual of arms, I think, are all different discussions that are worth having, but are just that, different, from this particular subject.

[Default.mp3]

FWIW, Bruce Lee's statement is something of a rephrasing of an old Chan/Zen quote:

Before I had studied Zen for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and waters as waters. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and waters are not waters. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it’s just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and waters once again as waters.

I would personally not apply the aforementioned quotes to shooting quite the way you did.

[Digiroc]

... so perhaps the difference is a matter of mastery?

A universal truism if there ever was one in all endeavors. Becoming the master of any activity defines your skill of concentration on specific moves and ability to convert them to muscle memory. This often implies long hours and even years of training and practice.

I think if you shoot well, have mastered the fundamentals, then you can shoot anything well. Sure a 2" snubby is going to be more challenging to shoot well than a long barreled pistol. By applying your skill in the basics and a few rounds to see where point of impact is for a given sight picture (assuming it has sights).a shooter will shoot anything well.

Digiroc

[Al T.]

I think the little modifications that are made by the higher level shooters are, for the most part, to squeeze out that last 1-5% of performance edge which is tailored for them specifically.

Agree. Years ago, an article in (IIRC) American Handgunner pointed out that the difference between the winner in a big match was a truly minuscule difference from 2nd place, third, etc., etc. Seems that the top folks are pretty close, while the majority of us are better served with a extra case of ammo and some good coaching.

[hufnagel]

A universal truism if there ever was one in all endeavors. Becoming the master of any activity defines your skill of concentration on specific moves and ability to convert them to muscle memory. This often implies long hours and even years of training and practice.

I think if you shoot well, have mastered the fundamentals, then you can shoot anything well. Sure a 2" snubby is going to be more challenging to shoot well than a long barreled pistol. By applying your skill in the basics and a few rounds to see where point of impact is for a given sight picture (assuming it has sights).a shooter will shoot anything well.

Digiroc

I am in no way a master of the pistol arts, but I've experienced what you've described. I've picked up other guns and seem to quite rapidly (within a magazine or cylinder) get to the point of shooting Minute of Bad Guy at the very least. It seems to me the basics translate across platforms, and that concept also translates across mediums. For example we can all drive just about any vehicle reasonably well and safely (excluding the severe outliers such as motorcycles and multi-axle articulated trucks) within a few minutes familiarization with said vehicle.

[45dotACP]

Agree. Years ago, an article in (IIRC) American Handgunner pointed out that the difference between the winner in a big match was a truly minuscule difference from 2nd place, third, etc., etc. Seems that the top folks are pretty close, while the majority of us are better served with a extra case of ammo and some good coaching.

Exactly. I heard something along the lines of the winning spot in 2015 production nationals came down to the points difference of less than a single c-zone hit. The winner was shooting a TDA, second place guy a Glock...

Arguing "which is better" by pointing at a high level shooter is ignoring the forest for the trees.

Ben Stoeger could still shred with a Glock, Vogel could shred with a Tanfoglio...the question of whether MY performance can be significantly improved is less clear. I'm definitely not a "keep it stock" fanatic....but I've come to find that a few hundred bucks in custom work is probably less useful than a few hundred bucks in ammo to practice what you learned in a class.