If you want to push your limits, HF scoring is a great motivator. I got bored with 3 Gun because time plus scoring rewards the extremes of hosing or accuracy.
If you want to add more “real world” to your HF drills, put in more no-shoots. That will motivate you to “get your hits”, and to know your limits too.
“There is no growth in the comfort zone.”--Jocko Willink
"You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
Correct, by selecting target size and shape, you can build in whatever accuracy component is appropriate to your shooting while still using hit factor scoring to evaluate your performance. USPSA minor scoring is quite biased towards accuracy already, since a C receives only 60 percent and a D twenty percent of an A. And you can cut your A zone down to whatever size you want.Originally Posted by Clusterfrack
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
With respect, to loosely quote Stoeger, if you have been shooting USPSA for a couple years you have no business in C class (D class is for absolute beginners and people with severe serious physical disabilities). Don't envision targets, buy the actual targets. A box of 100 lasts me a loooooooooooong time.
Shoot drills within an allotted time with almost all A's. Try out HF once in a while. Don't make it harder or more goofy than it needs to be.
Last edited by Peally; 09-10-2018 at 08:26 AM.
Semper Gumby, Always Flexible
It took me a couple years to get to C from D when I started. That was with regular practice in LF, DF, reading and implementing Stoeger's books and Andersen's book.
I strongly believe in quantifiable measures of performance. For me, a timer and IDPA targets or USPSA with upper 1/2 of the A zone counting is what I use to measure progress and try to develop skill.
I have been so thoroughly convinced by folks who have gunfight and combat experience (DB and KevinB locally here), and we are talking a staggering amount of experience; that the accuracy demands to get the results you want (down BGs and no non-combatants hit) are so high that I gravitate away from hit factor scoring and towards shooting to smaller and smaller "A zones" in times that meet "contextual" realism.
Most of last year I used a vertically oriented 4x6 as my A zone. It drove a patience on the sights for me that I found was lacking when I got my blaze on to a full USPSA A zone or something similar. That may have been overkill but it taught me some stuff. I see something like that with the use of reduced Alpha used on targets like the VTAC skeleton thing and others.
Last edited by JHC; 09-10-2018 at 10:03 AM.
“Remember, being healthy is basically just dying as slowly as possible,” Ricky Gervais
Using the USPSA target as an example, make the upper half of the A zone an "A", the lower half a "C". The C zone then becomes a "D" hit. The D zone is a visible miss. 2 "A" hits are required to neutralize the target.
For matches add a penalty to Mikes, and lots of uprange and downrange No-Shoots. Hitting a No-Shoot is a Match DQ.
Use minor scoring.
Now hear the lamentations and gnashing of teeth.
This is the point I was trying to make in Enel’s training journal. Speed is a very important part of competive and defensive shooting.
Fixed time drills are either easy, challenging, or impossible depending upon the fixed time and your skill level. They may make sense for a test, where you are evaluating to a standard, but they devalue time asssuming you are within the allowed time. Hit factor scoring of drills, by contrast, allows you to set whatever accuracy standard you desire and then use time as an integral part of the scoring to continuously evaluate your performance.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
Why not do both — shoot to whatever size target area interests you and apply hit factor scoring to it, so you value speed and accuracy?
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
Because if I shoot a D, I award me no points and may God have mercy on my soul.
And I hate math.
I get how many like it though. As mentioned in a fairly recent conversation, I am shooting pretty much at most, once per week. That factors into my design.
“Remember, being healthy is basically just dying as slowly as possible,” Ricky Gervais
When not doing time-only on steel targets, I would focus on aggregate scored, Hit factor evaluated training. (If I clipped a no-shoot or threw a mike, I tossed the run...)
It kinda worked out like this: Shoot some mini-stage, evaluate the HF. I'd just make it a goal to shoot it 10% better HF-wise.
(I'm usually 10-20% behind Open GM's in matches, so I was trying to get to HF's that were pushing my envelope)
If the point distribution stays largely the same, you start to see that you need to make time savings.
E.g. say you have a 70-80 point value stage with an initial hit factor of 5. Assuming you're able to shoot ~70 points relatively consistently, a 10% savings bumps that HF up to 5.5. Assuming you're still shooting ~70 points, you now need to move/do things ~1.5-2 seconds faster.
Playing around with that concepts lets you figure out a pace. Internalizing the pace, well, that's a tougher thing to master, however, the more you practice, the better that feeling becomes.
Video review is solid gold here... Seriously. Set the iPad up, video the training, after 3-runs, watch the footage, take what you can, then ditch the footage after you review it.
Reply With Quote