Press-Out: Good or Bad?

[Patrick Scott]

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]

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]

wow. perfectly put, beltjones.

[DonovanM]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 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]

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.