Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 64

Thread: Reactive vs Predictive shooting

  1. #11
    Member MVS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    MI
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Watson View Post
    Are you talking about what Jeff Cooper said, dividing the Double Tap into Controlled Pair and "Hammer?"

    I never trained with the Colonel personally, but I would say roughly, yes. This video describes it better than the one I posted previously I think.


  2. #12
    Member feudist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Murderham, the Tragic City
    Quote Originally Posted by MVS View Post
    I never trained with the Colonel personally, but I would say roughly, yes. This video describes it better than the one I posted previously I think.

    That was a fantastic explanation of his teaching goal. He really can break concepts down in clear actionable steps.

  3. #13
    Really good guys are shooting nearly every split predictively and a bunch of transitions that way.
    Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.

  4. #14
    Site Supporter 1911Nut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    No personal experience with Stoeger, just his free videos and one of his books.

    I have trained with Jeff Cooper, Clint Smith, Rob Leatham. and Robert Vogel, as well as others. For ME, Stoeger explains concepts more clearly than the others. That is not meant as disrespect to any of the others, but Stoeger's methodology of putting forth a concept seems to be perfectly matched to MY ability to grasp the concept.

    As I recall when the concept of two quick shots was communicated to me by other instructors, they used different ways to communicate the concepts, including Cooper's "controlled pair" vs. "hammer" (as well as his disdain for the term "double tap"), it was clear what the objective was, across all the instructors. But in almost everything I have seen from Stoeger, he not only clearly communicates the concept of what is to be accomplished by the training, but also adds what issues you are likely to encounter in the training and adds possible causes and corrections for those issues. And it is all done concisely and clearly. I admire his teaching ability.

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by GJM View Post
    [Predictive shooting] essentially means firing a pair, where the second shot is fired instantly relying on your developed index, grip and stance rather than reacting to the dot.
    This is it as I understand it from the Stoeger video. In addition, Ben Stoeger emphasizes that correct grip is very important for predictive shooting. (And in training, note a little bit what's going on with your sights after the shots break and correct your grip accordingly.)

    I assume:
    Predictive shooting is only used for "close" A zones (what "close" means depends on the shooter's skill, for me maybe <= 4 yd).
    Reactive shooting is used for A zones at "middle distance" (say 4 to 10 yd in my case).

    Is my assumption going in the right direction?

    PS:
    Well, now I've also watched the 2nd video and its end about expectations (from 5:30) confirms my first assumption. But if I can do it only at <= 5 yd, I'm only very little above "random dipshit from the street" level. (In Germany, most of us sport shooters train mainly bullseye shooting at 25 m (27 yd), this I can do pretty well. Learned a new English word from the video btw, "dipshit". Will train predictive shooting.)
    Last edited by P30; 01-22-2023 at 04:41 PM.

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by P30 View Post
    This is it as I understand it from the Stoeger video.

    I assume:
    Predictive shooting is only used for "close" A zones (what "close" means depends on the shooter's skill, for me maybe <= 4 yd).
    Reactive shooting is used for A zones at "middle distance" (say 4 to 10 yd in my case).

    Is my assumption going in the right direction?
    I think you're going in the right direction with a few more considerations:
    1. Risk of target (is there a no-shoot attached, is this a piece of steel that starts an activator sequence, etc.)
    2. Awkwardness of position or difficulty of shooting (shooting on the move is harder to do predictively, so is shooting from an unconventional position or one handed shooting)

  7. #17
    Focus JCN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    in a really good place

    I hate the terminology

    @Clusterfrack and I have discussions about this but I still dislike the terms predictive versus reactive.

    It adds an unnecessary dichotomy to something that is a continuum in most situations.

    Iím predicting AND reacting on almost every shot to what came before it.






    So letís take some general scenarios and definitions.

    Iím shooting a close up 4 aces with a 1911Ö



    On the draw, Iím predicting where I think the gun will end up but Iím also reacting to what Iím seeing as Iím coming into position.

    On the second shot, Iím predicting where the second shot will generally end up, but Iím also reacting to the timing feel in my hands and the vision of the gun. I make the choice to initiate the second shot in the recoil cycle of the first shot.

    I also have the ability to abort the second shot at that time if something feels funny or thereís a malfunction.

    That was 90% prediction and 10% reaction. Maybe 95% prediction and 5% reaction.


    Now take 100 yard rifle B8 shots on a timer. Defoor standard.



    Iím predicting when the gun will settle after the recoil of the previous shot and Iím reacting to when I see and feel the recoil putting the dot where I can go again.

    This case is 20% prediction and 80% reaction. Iím predicting based on my recoil control when the dot will be where I need it and reacting to when itís there. Itís still dynamic and based off the previous shot.



    So I still donít like the artificial split of terms.

    Even when splitting 0.15s with a pistol, I can micro adjust the timing by 0.02-0.03 for better hits if I need it. Iím still reacting to what Iím seeing as well as predicting.

    Without reaction, then my hits would be the same with my eyes closed and I can assure you thatís not the case. Iím tracking through every shot and timing my next shot based off the early recoil cue and behavior of the shot before. Iím still reacting and timing based off an external plus internal cue.

    I think this is best demonstrated with a video Iíve shown a bunch before, but I want you to pay particular attention to the very tight cluster of hits on the upper partial target. Theyíre way tighter than the side targets and full open lower target. You might not have heard it in the cadence, but I very specifically took an additional 0.01-0.02 per split on the upper target to make sure I could cue the shots more accurately. I was reacting AND predicting. Otherwise the spread would be the same distribution as the other three targets.



    So again, maybe Iím using different definitions than the PTSG people are but I donít find the dichotomy useful. Iím always using a combination of predicting and reacting when Iím shooting action pistol type things.
    Last edited by JCN; 01-22-2023 at 04:16 PM.

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by JCN View Post
    So again, maybe Iím using different definitions than the PTSG people are but I donít find the dichotomy useful. Iím always using a combination of predicting and reacting when Iím shooting action pistol type things.
    In elementary school, pupils first learn that there is a 1 and a 2. Later, they learn there is a continuum of numbers between the two. On my level, knowing that there is predictive and reactive shooting helps. Later, I will try to use the continuum you've mentioned as well.
    Last edited by P30; 01-22-2023 at 05:07 PM.

  9. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    1984
    Quote Originally Posted by GJM View Post
    For many years, there was a focus on "reactive" shooting, with many books and methods having reactive in their name. From what I am observing, the next frontier is extending predictive shooting to nearly every target in the match, including many transitions.
    Agree 100%. Funny enough, there are almost no shooting instructors besides a very few who teach it or even are aware of that. Predictive recoil control and predictive transitions are two completely different skills requiring totally different training and techniques though. First is what we train with doubles. The second can be approached from two angles: trigger preparation and following the eyes, I think.

  10. #20
    Focus JCN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    in a really good place
    Quote Originally Posted by cheby View Post
    Agree 100%. Funny enough, there are almost no shooting instructors besides a very few who teach it or even are aware of that. Predictive recoil control and predictive transitions are two completely different skills requiring totally different training and techniques though. First is what we train with doubles. The second can be approached from two angles: trigger preparation and following the eyes, I think.
    When I started training my wife, I trained neutral trigger press and index in dry.

    But every single live shot was either in a pair or off a transition. Even in the beginning.

    Dynamic mechanics and vision. The static stuff is all dry fire.

    Teaching her to feel and see timing of single bounce recoil is the fundamental building block.



    So many instructors try and teach trigger control in live and waste time and ammo.

    Live fire is for dynamic recoil control and timing at speed.

    Hence my ongoing view that untimed dot torture is T ball (fully independent reactive shots like untimed bullseye) and dry is a better training than untimed live.
    Last edited by JCN; 01-22-2023 at 07:06 PM.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •