Originally Posted by Jim Watson
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.
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.
Really good guys are shooting nearly every split predictively and a bunch of transitions that way.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
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.
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.
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)
@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.
I’m predicting AND reacting on almost every shot to what came before it.
So let’s take some general scenarios and definitions.
I’m shooting a close up 4 aces with a 1911…
On the draw, I’m predicting where I think the gun will end up but I’m also reacting to what I’m seeing as I’m coming into position.
On the second shot, I’m predicting where the second shot will generally end up, but I’m 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 there’s 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.
I’m predicting when the gun will settle after the recoil of the previous shot and I’m 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. I’m predicting based on my recoil control when the dot will be where I need it and reacting to when it’s there. It’s still dynamic and based off the previous shot.
So I still don’t 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. I’m still reacting to what I’m seeing as well as predicting.
Without reaction, then my hits would be the same with my eyes closed and I can assure you that’s not the case. I’m tracking through every shot and timing my next shot based off the early recoil cue and behavior of the shot before. I’m still reacting and timing based off an external plus internal cue.
I think this is best demonstrated with a video I’ve shown a bunch before, but I want you to pay particular attention to the very tight cluster of hits on the upper partial target. They’re 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 I’m using different definitions than the PTSG people are but I don’t find the dichotomy useful. I’m always using a combination of predicting and reacting when I’m shooting action pistol type things.
Last edited by JCN; 01-22-2023 at 04:16 PM.
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.
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.
Reply With Quote