Dry fire is boring

[BigT]

Two things keep me interested in dry fire

One is , as has been mentioned, seeing the improvements in live fire and being capable of stuff I couldn't do previously.

The other thing is when I'm dry firing I'm constantly under pressure to make par. I don't set par times I can reach without running on the ragged edge, and when I reach them they either get dropped or the accuracy standard gets raised.

[Qaz98]

I bought a CZ-75 because I wanted one and also because I thought extensive dry fire with a heavy DA trigger would help with all other triggers. I'd also heard that some CZs had bad trigger return springs, so when I got the gun, my stated goal was to dry fire until I broke the pistol (or really the TRS). The TRS broke after 85 live fires and two months of dry fire. I was extremely pleased because I thought it would take me longer than that to break it. I use snap caps, but if I break the gun (and not just a spring) by dry firing, it'll be worth it. My shooting has definitely improved.

Is that the general consensus that it's better to learn on a DA than a Striker? I've been working on my 229 and PX4cc - but then ran across Vickers Tactical page, and he says he recommends people learn on a Striker first. I'm not a brand new shooter, but still shoot like one, so I've been ramping up the dry fire practices, but have been toggling between my DAs and G19.

[Peally]

It doesn't matter what type you start on, the key is effective practice.

[YVK]

Still, it's simply not as much fun as punching holes in paper or plinking beer cans.

So, how do you keep yourselves motivated?

When I get my ass kicked in the match and half the reasons for that can and should be worked in dry fire, it is very motivating. In fact, punching holes and plinking stops being fun for the realization that it takes me nowhere.

how do you help others maintain the quality of their dry fire when motivation wanes?

Take a little break. Wait until next ass kicking. Whatever works.

[pangloss]

Is that the general consensus that it's better to learn on a DA than a Striker? I've been working on my 229 and PX4cc - but then ran across Vickers Tactical page, and he says he recommends people learn on a Striker first. I'm not a brand new shooter, but still shoot like one, so I've been ramping up the dry fire practices, but have been toggling between my DAs and G19.

I don't know. My shooting has improved since last June but I've been dry firing more and since January I've been shooting more. I'm sure there is more than one means to this end, but what I'm doing seems to be working for me. I still have plenty of room for improvement though.

Also ~98% of my shooting has been with Glocks and I really wanted to have some familiarity with another kind of pistol.

Anyway, I'd certainly like to know what others think.

EDIT: I am not a new shooter either. Becoming modestly better than mediocre is not the same thing as just starting out. If striker fired pistols weren't easier for new shooters, they probably wouldn't be so popular.

Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk

[SecondsCount]

Is that the general consensus that it's better to learn on a DA than a Striker? I've been working on my 229 and PX4cc - but then ran across Vickers Tactical page, and he says he recommends people learn on a Striker first. I'm not a brand new shooter, but still shoot like one, so I've been ramping up the dry fire practices, but have been toggling between my DAs and G19.

While practicing dry-fire with a DA/SA will improve your shooting overall, I always recommend someone to dry-fire with the same type of gun that they are going to carry or compete with.

[blues]

I don't know that there's a one size fits all answer to which platform is best to learn on, train on etc. My highest qualification scores were shot with revolvers back in the day. I've come close with semi-auto pistols of various types but have never bettered them. I don't know if that's unusual or not because it's not something which particularly concerns me nor would it change anything.

My advice would be to pick a firearm / platform that one found appealing after a reasonable amount of research, that felt good in their hands and which was affordable enough to allow sufficient funds left over for gear, necessary mods and, most importantly, ammunition, (training) and range time.

Keep it as simple as possible. (But no simpler.)

[JAD]

If striker fired pistols weren't easier for new shooters, they probably wouldn't be so popular.

Could be that TDA instruction is largely shitty, or that most people don't avail themselves of what good instruction there is.

[JustOneGun]

Could be that TDA instruction is largely shitty, or that most people don't avail themselves of what good instruction there is.

I suppose it's a bit of both. I was thinking of this when people talk about the Glock shooting low and left. It's like they person complaining about it hasn't seen the same number of people shooting off the target with a TDA.

I like to use a TDA for target transitions. But I'm not a new shooter. I have found no negative with the little bit of dryfire I use the TDA for. Would I recommend a new shooter do the same. Heck no. It has and will have a strong likelihood of screwing them up or severely delaying their progress.

[Exurbankevin]

Working on it.

http://interactivepistol.com